Talk:Religious violence in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religious violence in India article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

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.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Voting commenced (Background section)

I am against adding biased & pov fork Background section added by User:Desione and he keeps reverted my edits. He also accused a new editor as sockpuppet who also supported my edits. I am yet again inspired by this occurrence and forcing myself removing the biased section. I therefore am asking other editors opinion on this issue.

In short, I want to know whether editors supports/against adding Background section in the article. Sockpuppets are requested to stay outside. Harjk talk 05:47, 17 March 2008

Polling result is out after a reasonable time of polling (per WP policies, 7 days is enough reaching a consensus).
Current result: AGAINST=4, FOR=1. --Harjk talk 06:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Harjk, I think it would be useful if you explained what parts of the background section are POV. Some parts of the background are probably gratuitous and should be dropped, for example, the second para that lists high offices held by religious minorities, but the first para seems to provide a useful perspective. However, on the face of it, neither para seems to justify the POV accusation. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a main article for it i.e Religion in India. The entire stuff is pov fork copied from there and deleted Religious harmony in India and some other articles. It is reasonable if that main article to add under see also section. Unfortunately, biased pov pushers are adding it here with no reason. This article deals with Religious violence occurred in many Indian places that deals with different issues. Adding this sort of unnecessary forks background is unacceptable, inappropriate and irrelevant and moreover spoils the enhancement of the article. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a POV history here. However, the article as written gives no context information and the lay reader will probably think that religious violence is the norm in India. A bit of background would be useful as perspective. It is probably not necessary to have a separate background section because all that really needs to be said is that there are many religions in India and that these sometimes coexist peacefully and sometimes coexist uneasily. Religious violence follows from the uneasy part. Perhaps the article can start with (I've left the intent of the existing content intact and :

Religious violence in India includes the targeting of religious institutions, the persecution of people on the basis of their religion. A predominantly Hindu country, many different religions are practiced in India (Hindu x%, Muslim y%, Sikh z%, Christian xx%, Buddhist ....) and while people of these faiths often coexist peacefully, the country has also been prone to outbreaks of religious violence. Religious fundamentalism is a major cause behind this religious violence; with Hindu nationalism, Khalistani activists, Fundamentalist Christianity, and Islamic fundamentalism acting as major forces. Major conflicts include the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, the riots in Mumbai in 1992, the 2002 Gujarat violence, the 2007 Orissa violence. Lesser incidents occur in many towns and villages.--RegentsPark (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Users AGAINST Background section

(Per my comment above) Harjk talk 05:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-- The way it is written right now is definitely non NPOV. It can be salvaged by fixing the last portion if the percentages given at the top are found to be useful for the article. --Ubardak (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn’t lacking NPOV and not much big deal. Just add 5 tides (your signature) below For/Against subsection to get a clear consensus. That’s all. (I hope you are against it since you are here) --Harjk talk 06:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is about "AGAINST Background section". The article is not a FA right now - if you are unhappy with "current" state, please improve it.--ÆN↑ÞÆº§®»Ŧ 11:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The section is POV fork and original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Users FOR Background section

I shouldn't even get into this but I don't see how one can have an article about 'Religious' violence without background information about the 'religions' in India. The current version, which seems to say that many religions coexist in India, seems innocuous to me though it could do with some copyediting. Perspective is always healthy! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The section provides important perspective which I have explained many times and people are continuing to blindly deleting the section without giving reasons. Desione (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Comments

What the hell is this voting? Is this supposed to mean anything?.--ÆN↑ÞÆº§®»Ŧ 13:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:VOTE and WP:PSD, a straw poll is helpful if it helps editors actually reach true consensus. In this case reaching to the consensus level was hard as the whole edits reverted by others and croseed 3RR. --Harjk talk 04:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted a comment stating the article is POV, and I return after several days and you have started a Poll stating a meager "Background" section is "POV fork" (wth is that, btw?), and then went ahead to recruit supporting votes. It is indeed a jocular attempt that cannot be argued about. And while your revert, calling me "vandal", could have been a mistake, when did I violate 3RR?

It only means one thing - you are least interested in a discussion and are just trying to somehow manage this whole ridiculous article. If you have a sane comment to pass, please proceed - I am not falling for "straw pool" tactics.--ÆN↑ÞÆº§®»Ŧ 10:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, my comment is not "additional comment", it is rejection of your poll. Take a deep breath and accept it.--ÆN↑ÞÆº§®»Ŧ 10:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is you who are disrupting me & my edits. Don’t simply accuse established editors with unconstructive urging. If you are adjacent to the poll put in your comments under Additional comments (already here) or add your user name below Users FOR section. I am telling you seriously that if you disrupt it, I will incontestably report it in Admin notice board. In addition, I want to say that it is as per WP:VOTE and WP:PSD, a straw poll is helpful if it helps editors actually reach true consensus. In this case it was difficult to reach a consensus (see the history) of removing the background section. It is clear pov fork and I want to know about other users supports adding it or not. --Harjk talk 10:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, now I noticed that one thing you have accepted it is a POV. That’s ok and since you have voted against adding it, I appreciate your support removing some of the cruft and POV fork from it. I therefore am asking you to do participate well in removing the whole flippant and ridiculous garbages from here. I furthermore appreciate your support. Thanks. --Harjk talk 11:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why the "Background" section is being voted on considered as "POV". The background section is simply pointing out the obvious: 1) india is a diverse country (both religiously and otherwise), 2) religious diversity extends to the top of the government, and 3) incidences of religious voilence are not common in india and isolated when they happen. Casual readers (who are primarly readers of wikipedia articles) need some perspective and the "background" section simply puts things in proper perspective and scale. Thank you. Now can someone please explain why this would be considered a POV. Desione (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That is all I wanted to see. User:Harjk, the "established editor" since 23 Feb, 2008, is trolling and I am going to follow WP:DNFT. As a last resort, I would ask him to not remove this comment as "vandalism".--ÆN↑ÞÆº§®»Ŧ 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Check my userpage. I’m an established editor who uses multiple accounts in a manner permitted by policy. What else you need to know from me? Additionally, it is not trolling. Don’t misinterpret WP policies. I have clearly stated the reason why the poll commenced. It is you who are again disrupting me & other editors who had participated in the voting. --Harjk talk 05:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Harjk's process (straw poll) to reach consensus is legitimate. The problem with the section is that it is WP:OR and WP:CRUFT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a great reason to delete the whole page then, since it is a cesspool of OR and CRUFT.Baka man 17:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus yet

I am not reading a consensus here yet given that ÆN↑ÞÆº§® and User:Desione have protested the vote itself (in which canvassing was used) and User:Bakasuprman has argued for deletion of the article itself. Plus no one has explained why the background section needs to be removed. This is not a consensus. Desione (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you blind? ÆN↑ÞÆº§® ~~had a vote at FOR section~~ has voted in AGAINST section. Apart from that, another 3 editors have already against it. Even ÆN↑ÞÆº§® opposes it, 3 are still against adding it. In short, 2 are FOR and 3 are AGAINST. Majority+consensus=Accept. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the history, his comment against the vote was modified into a vote to support removal of the section. Desione (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he is still in FOR section, cant you see it properly? He did not altered his comment. You are acting against consensus. I'm repeating my words: Majority+consensus=Accept. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See this [1]. The diff clearly shows you (User:Harjk) modifying a negative comment into a positive vote. Please revert back to including the Background section or I will file a complaint. Desione (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I’d been arranging it in order-wise. Not modifying his comment at all. You are mistaken. If that is the case, he could have reverted my edit since he was watching it. Even he opposes it, another three are still supporting it. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not an excuse. You need to revert your own mistakes. Also you have used canvassing and that still does not mean that there is a consensus since two users oppose the voting itself and one wants the page to be deleted. So please revert or I will be forced to file a complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs) 09:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to be childish. First of all, you come to the point. The section itself is highly pov push that neither fit in the article nor from RS. A total irreverent and inappropriate to the topic and this is why nobody has come to vote in the FOR section. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to feed the troll, but for the sake of record: I haven't voted on the poll. I posted a comment for User:Ubardak, and rejected the poll. There is no other interaction in the "polling" process by me whatsoever.--talk 06:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it is all about bad faith attack because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India.

--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] en:Religious harmony in India listed for deletion

The article en:Religious harmony in India listed for deletion second time.I wonder why people should have POV against en:Religious harmony in India but that POV is quite apparant that is the reason it is listed en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India here.

I request those who want to keep this article do vote at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India so I can keep working further on this article.

If every 10 minutes if some one or other wants to delete the article how do I spend more time to improve the article ? Openion from people working on India related projects is needed urgently.

Thanks and looking forward to support

Mahitgar (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed section

Clearly, and with minimal fuss, will those who disagree about the section please lay out the arguments here. Please justify your stance with reference to our core policies, especially WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. Parallels to similar sections in other articles, if any, will also be appreciated. Please refrain from [[WP:EW|while this discussion is underway. Go! Relata refero (disp.) 13:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a simple question. If someone has a problem with some text, he or she should discuss. Why the hell you should revert it before and then call for "discuss"? Relato, you are not a guardian of this article.

In other words. I would like to ask, the onus for explanation is on you, because you think it is POV. When did Wikipedia become a place where one has to discuss every sentence before addition?--talk 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anupam, it becomes that when a dispute/edit war takes place. Now please discuss, while remaining civil and avoiding WP:EW. To start off with, please detail in neutral language why this section is important and encyclopaedic, as well as relevant to an article about religious violence. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am as civil as I could be.
The section provides "Background", and so it is important. It provides background for "religious violence" in India, so it is relevant for an article about religious violence in India.

Now your turn - what is POV about it?--talk 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, nice try - it is not a "non consensus" version - a rigged poll is not a measure of consensus. It is a disputed version.

I guess I should answer the question! I don't think a background section contributes much to the article. As written, the section tries to provide an artificial balance to the presence of Religious violence that is not necessary (I should think that India's religious diversity is strong enough to survive without artifice). A line in the lead that indicates the largely peaceful coexistence of the many religions of India is more than sufficient. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It provides a much needed balance. A background section is much needed for undue weight. The current article is biased and reads like India is the only country with historical presence of "religious violence". Also, "presence of religious violence" in India is not a plague. There is no country without "presence of religious violence", now or ever.

Not only that, it is needed for a better prose. We are talking about incidents -> background section is essential.--talk 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Regents, the issue here is whether casual readers will get the wrong message after reading the article not whether religious diversity in India is strong enough or not. As an example, consider gun violence in USA (Gun violence in the United States) which gives scale, discusses causes, and also attempted solutions right in the lead itself (eventhough I think that article could do a better job of giving more perspective). Also take a look at the section headings of Gun violence article. Plus, I don't need to tell you that Gun violence in USA is a more serious problem by several orders of magnitude as compared to religious violence in India with 3x population, but for casual readers it helps to put things in proper perspective. Desione (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

At the cost of expanding your brief, I think the problem with the article is that it is trying to do too much. The entire article should be simple and straightforward with the current lead (copyedited), a section on 'Hindu-Muslim Conflicts' that discusses the history, the nature, and the major incidents (briefly, since they have their own articles anyway); a section on 'Anti-Christian violence' that does not seem to have its own article; a section on 'The Sikh Riots', but very very brief since it has its own article, and perhaps the Media section. The 'Ancient India' thing must go. What does a discussion on the 'Goa Inquisition' and the anti-Buddhist policies of a 'rising Sunga emperor' have to do with 'Religious violence in India' of today? The purpose of this article should be to bring the threads together, not expound in detail on any one thing.--RegentsPark (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To RegentsPark: The "Ancient India" should not go, simply because there is no way to define what is "today" and what is not. The title was given by me while copyediting, for the lack of better term, and for grouping what appeared to be already present in the article.

But I see the problem you are mentioning.

The problem is here because the article exists for no reason other than advancing someone's point of view.

Anyway, maybe we can decide on its form. I think there are two possibilites:

"India has diversities -- violence against Religion no.1, violence against Religion no.2, ...., conclusion(?)."
"India has seen religious violence seen long time before -- ancient India -- medieval India -- modern India."

As you might have guessed, I oppose both :) But I think number 2 will be a better poison. Other options are welcome. If a consensus forms for one of the options, I will calrify by position.--talk 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is that 'Religious Violence in India' typically refers to Hindu Muslim conflicts. The term 'Religious' applied here has two consequences, one fortunate (bringing the relationship between Anti-Christian violence and Hindu fundamentalism to the fore) and the other unfortunate (diluting the virulence and persistence of the Hindu-Muslim issue). Either way, historical incidents like the Goa Inquisition and the anti-Buddhist policies of a long forgotten emperor have about as much place on a discussion on religious violence in India as the the Spanish Inquisition has on an article on anti-semitic graffiti in French cemeteries. However, let's wait and see what others have to say about this.--RegentsPark (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There, that's what I am trying to say.

Hindu nationalism has an already an article. I don't see the point of reiterating it here again.
The article was NOT created as an extension of Hindi-Muslim conflict. That part is already mentioned here: Islam_in_India#Hindu-Muslim_conflict. If you think that is what needs to be done, please move it to Hindu-Muslim_conflict.

Anti-Buddhist can be removed, specially since his son himself corrected the mistakes. But on the otherhand, anti-christian, muslim, sikhism, hindu - they are fought over petty local policies and given the color of religion by recalling ancient atrocities. It would be akin to Spanish acquisition causing anti-Spanish violence now.

While you and me know what 'Religious Violence in India' typically refers to, a year from now it will refer to what the article's name suggest, with a new batch of trolls and POV pushers revert warring every edit. The article was created to quench the India-bashing thirst. At least I fail to see any other reason for its existence, because otherwise we wouldn't be discussing what the article really refers to etc.

Also, don't forget then the anti-Hindu violence, specially in southern India and eastern India - places where Hindus are in minority. And don't forget that the riots are never one sided. Right now the article looks like a list of religious atrocities committed in India, which is a ridiculous topic, but I believe it can be turned into a exhaustive, complete and well cited article. That's why I think going according to "time" will help.

The problem with going X vs Y vs Z position is that it will never be NPOV, it will never be factual, and it will never be complete.--talk 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a google search on 'religious violence in India' and found plenty of examples (c.f., this [2] book review but there were many more). The reality is that religious violence is a serious problem in India and an article about it is not, prima facie, out of the question. However, I agree that the existence of the article raises the serious issue that it understates the real problem, which is Hindu Muslim violence by elevating other kinds of religious violence to the same level of seriousness. Anti-Christian violence, and I don't want to say that it is not serious, is nowhere near at the same level. Similarly, as Desione says, the Sikh riots, while religious and certainly not addressed at the level a democracy should address it, are not endemic the way Hindu-Muslim riots are. I'm not even sure why the North-Eastern states thing is included. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, religion is not the primary cause of violence related to 1984 Anti-Sikh riots, Kashmir issues, and Tripura although it has probably entered into the equation up to some extent. So I would suggest removing these issues from this article and any religious issues related to these events can be discussed in the pages dedicated to these events. Desione (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree completely with your anti-Hindu violence statement. Anti-Hindu violence, if there is any, is trivial when compared to riots on the Muslim population and is not even close when compared to the attacks on Christians or the seriousness on the attacks on Sikhs during the 1984 riots. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to hindus and muslims violence is completely on an equal opportunity basis (keeping Kashmir issues out of the equation). Even muslims in India won't deny this. Please don't question the manliness of rioting muslims by telling them that their rioting is not having much effect :-) Desione (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am not clear how the 1984 Anti-Sikh violence can be considered as religious violence since the whole issue was a result of a political problem that came out of Punjab terrorism. So I am not even sure why it is being discussed in the article on religious violence. Desione (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And I am still not seeing any reasoning (as opposed to just labelling) from people who oppose the "Background" section and other such changes. Is this really a discussion or just an attempt to hold things. Unless somebody starts talking with reasoning as opposed to simple labelling, I plan to readd the section. Desione (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, the religious violence is an abuse and readers are finding only for what sort of exertions are going on in the country. They are least bothered of a detailed Indian history and other sort of materials that you two editors have added. That is definitely a different item in wrong place (WP:NOT. I disagree with Desione’s arguiments of casual readers will get the wrong message of India. it is your biased POV. A piece of information can be tolerable in contest of the topic (as Regent park suggested) and we cannot do it as per a minority view. And also why the hell you added NPOV tag? Is it because of without a background section? I will definitely remove it if I am not convinced with a proper reason. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen again, the religious violence is an abuse and readers are finding only for what sort of exertions are going on in the country. They are least bothered anecdotal cases and other sort of materials that you are advocating. That is definitely a different item in wrong place (WP:NOT. I disagree with Harjk’s arguiments of casual readers will get the right information without Background section. it is your biased POV. A piece of information can be tolerable in contest of the topic (as Regent park suggested) and we cannot do it as per a minority view. And also why the hell I didn't added NPOV tag? Is it not because of without a background section? I will definitely not remove it if I am convinced with a proper reason. Desione (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Apply WP:CIVIL in your edits. It looks strange simply copying others comments & pasting. Normally I don’t care, but it makes other editors unhappy. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto :-) Desione (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-Hindu violence, if there is any, is trivial when compared to riots on the Muslim population and is not even close when compared to the attacks on Christians or the seriousness on the attacks on Sikhs during the 1984 riots."? RegentsPark

Wide off the mark mate. Genocide in Kashmir and anti-Hindu violence in the north-east aren't trivial matters by any means. India has also has suffered the most amounts of terrorism related casualties than any country, most of these activities are aimed at the Hindu majority. The Sikh riots were a one off event heavily concerning politics, considering that the culprits were associated with the Congress party. Anti-Christian violence are a combination of minor events hardly comparable to genocide in Kashmir or mass conversions and violence in the north-east. KBN (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you but that's not important. The article is here, earnest undergrads and high school seniors are probably writing papers entitled 'Religious violence in India' as we type, and it is our duty as wikipedians to make life easy for term paper writers :-). I reiterate my original suggestion that the article be simple since most of the topics included are covered in separate articles. The background section, IMHO, is unnecessary. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So what do you want here? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into what is religious violence and what is not. Clearly, we all have different views about that. However, the article is here, it seems like a topic that has plenty of google cites, I'm sure several earnest undergrads and High School seniors are busy writing term papers entitled 'Religious violence in India' - Wikipedia's mission is to make those term papers easier :-) - so let's figure out what should go in it.

If one religions adherents get killed irrespective of which political party they belong to then it is "religious violence" and not political. It is really not factual that Hindus are a minority in South and Eastern India, in south in some parts of Kerala it may be true, else if we take AP, Karnataka and TN - Hindus would not be a minority even within any district of these 3 states. As far as the North east goes the separatism is not based on religion but region, Assam wants non Assamese out of their state and nos Assamese of any religion so the target is not Hindus, same for Manipur and Nagaland.Haphar (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If the violence is being carried out in the name of religion, for religious purposes, or motivated out of religious purposes then I think we can say that it is religious violence; Although I can understand that it might be difficult to draw the line, but the classification is not a major issue for me and we can leave it either way. What is important is that we put the violence in proper context and perspective. There are genuine greviences here on all sides and enough blame to go around all the way. Just saying that X killed Y does not serve any purpose. What was the context, what was the cause? What was the motive? Are there any attempted solutions or attempts to reach solutions (status)? Giving information without context always leads to misinterpretation - offcourse by hiding some information and letting other information out does serve some interests quite well. Desione (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The point, I think, is that the context is different for the different types of religious violence listed in the article. Since the context is different, a background section makes no contribution to the article. It is better to provide the context within the sections, focusing on the underlying causes and history, rather than on providing a list of ways in which India is religiously tolerant. Examples like the President and Prime Minister being from minority religions are not only not useful but are also rather obvious in their purpose.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can see that you are trying hard to represent WP:ThisOrThat point of view being articulated by WP:Trolls here, but when you say "contexts are different" can you please briefly describe these "contexts" that you are talking about just for clarification. Thanks Desione (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The Sikh riots were a product of three things: the failed attempt of the Sikhs in getting a separate country at partition (albeit not universal), a direct outcome of the language based partition of Punjab, and the rise of the Khalistan movement (partly as a result of 1 and 2 and various political acts of Mrs. G.). Supporting factors were the green revolution and the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration act. The Hindu Muslim issue has its roots in Muslim domination, the failure of the 1857 rebellion, the rise of the muslim league, the vote for pakistan, and partition. Anti Christian violence tends to be rooted in Missionary activity and in the perception that this is bad by Hindu fundamentalists. See what I mean? The underlying causes are completely different and practically unrelated. No single background section is going to address all this. I'm not trying to represent WP:Anything. I just think that a background section contributes nothing to the article. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But, these are just causes. Where is the context? (as pointed out by the title: Religious violence in India). The article in its current form is just describing the "violence" without giving any information about context of India or overall religious interactions. Quite a narrow description in my opinion which can be easily confused by readers. Desione (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can give a meaningful context that addresses the different types of violence in a succinct and meaningful fashion, let me know. Saying, for example, that the Prime Minister is a Sikh is not contextually relevant. At best it sounds like "Sikhs in India were doused with oil and burned in front of their children during the Sikh riots, but that's ok, the Prime Minister is a Sikh." Frankly, if your motivation is to put an extenuating spin on the prevalence of religious violence in India, you're going about it the wrong way. You would do a far better job, as well as show some more respect for the reader, if you focused on causes within each type of violence, rather than trying to paint a picture that tries to place religious violence in a frame of religious harmony. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Regents, I can understand your concern that description in the background section might be giving the impression that "religious violence in india" is not an issue of concern and this can be easily corrected without sacrificing the context. Also, the exact statement in the background section is Constitutionally, India is a secular and in practice the religious diversity of India extends to highest levels of government. Currently, the Prime Minister of India is a Sikh, the President of India is a Hindu, Vice President of India is a Muslim and the chairperson of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) is a Christian. Such religious diversity in top government posts is not new, but can be found in previous governments dating back to the time of Independence. Sikh PM is just one item in this, other parts are Hindu (lady) president, Christian (lady) leader of ruling party, and muslim (man) VP. So, your concern regarding Sikhs will apply equally to any community (Christians, Hindus, Muslim, etc) and hence sounds pretty NPOV to me. Desione (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The simple and obvious fact is that religious violence in india exists in the context of overall mutual respect for other religions - religion is just one aspect of diversity in India - India wouldn't exist (let alone grow the economy at 9%) if this was not the case. So unless you can prove somehow that this is incorrect in some way, I don't see anything wrong with the Background/Context section. Desione (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I suggest that you review the article Gun violence in USA in detail regarding what is covered in the article and what is not. While I can find tons of articles along the lines of "Religious Freedom in XXXX" (such as Religious Freedom in USA) the Religious violence in India is a unique article by itself. Not to mention the fact that almost everything in this article has been described in detail in at least two other articles in wikipedia. As far as I can see someone is on a mission here to distort the picture (since you raise the point about "showing more respect") Desione (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I must be missing something because the Gun violence in the United States article seems to confine itself purely to guns, gun ownership, and violence. Legislation and constitutional issues included are those that directly refer to gun ownership. About the 'mission to distort the picture', that may or may not be true. However, the way I see it, there is nothing inherently wrong with a 'Religious violence in India' article existing because that is an issue wrt India. The existence or non-existence of similar articles for other countries should have no effect in making that judgement (there is a policy of some sort that applies here but I can't recall which one). If the article exists, it should restrict itself to religious violence without trying to spin it. And, however you frame it, pointing to religious diversity in top government positions is spin. It is the sort of stuff that autocratic governments point to to legitimize their activities. Wikipedia shouldn't support that and India shouldn't need that. The Religion in India article is the right place for that sort of thing.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where the Gun violence in the USA article describes serious acts of violence as in the case of Religious violence in India article? Also can you show me where the Religious violence in India article describes things like "interational comparison", "policies", "attempted solutions", etc as in the case of Gun voilence in USA article ? See the difference? A completely skewed an narrow description of Religious violence in India Desione (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Any discussion of any social, political, economic, religious, cultural issue in India that does not consider diversity and its representation (for either good or bad or both) is a spin. diversity is not a symbolic or a taboo issue in India, it is very real and right in the face. Religious diversity is just one aspect of the overall diversity. The SURVIVAL (not just the growth) of the country depends upon embracing it and has depended on embracing it so far. While I don't expect casual reders to understand diversity in the indian context, anyone who thinks that there is a autocratic or "secret hindu fanatic-nationalist" government running the country, needs to have their head examined. What you see in the top levels of the government is what you get (minus the push and pulls of coalition politics and usual checks and balances plus all the social, economic, religious, etc issues - which may or may not be perfect). If you concern is that "concern regarding religious violence" is being sidelined that can be delt with. Desione (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire issue (context, causes, perspective, etc) of religious violence in india lies in extent and embrace of religious diversity in India and hence it has to be discussed front and center. Desione (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(I'm getting tired of multiple indents!) Desione, while I don't agree with you I do believe that much of what you say is not unreasonable and is in Good faith. We could argue back and forth till the cows come home so I'm going to make a proposal (see below) for trying to reconcile the different viewpoints that people are bringing to this article.--RegentsPark (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Let the readers read other Indian articles to know a better picture about it. If you want to eat non-veg dishes you should not go to a Brahmin restaurant. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RegentsPark's proposal

1. We accept the existence of this article and agree to make it meaningful and a model of NPOV. :-)
2. We accept that the section entitled 'background' should not be included (bear with me for a second).
3. We add a section entitled 'Civil and public response' which discusses how the government of India (commissions, prosecutions, failures, everything) and the public at large (non-governmental bodies, public interest groups, etc.) deals with the occurrences of religious violence. This sort of incorporates the last but one para of the current background section but puts it in the right frame and also clearly points to the level of democratic discourse in India - far more meaningful and valuable than listing 'official' diversity.
4. The material in the background section on the many religions in India goes into the lead (as before).
--RegentsPark (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am OK with existence of this article with the condition that all the largely cut-and-paste "propaganda literature" that has been spread through multiple articles be resolved at some point. In any case I will probably take up the Religious Freedom In India article at some point Desione (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also take a look at the lead now (in which I have merged important text from Background section). I really don't understand what your objection is against showing religious diversity in government since I could say the same thing about ownership of big businesses or the top brass of the military, or top Bollywood actors, or the favorite - the cricket team, and so on and so forth or all if you prefer :-). Government just happens to be the most influential - thats all. But I have moved the example of Sikh PM and president etc in the footnote, if this doesn't work, I don't know what will. Desione (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how you plan to address the causes without a separate section for causes, but I will assume that it can be done properly for now. Desione (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Another matter of practicality is how we resolve the scope of "religious violence" with respect to "Anti-Sikh riots, North-East situation, and Kashmir violence" with the current international perceptions and events :-) . Certainly, I don't mind applying "high-standards" here as long as they can be resolved with international perceptions in the "real world". :-) Desione (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Any way, I have tried merging lead and background. Please take a look and we can go from there I hope Desione (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think causes can be dealt with separately under each incident. The non-religious causes leading to the Sikh riots, the Kashmir situation, etc are more effectively covered there. Let's work on getting a stable structure (avoid constant reversions) and then we can focus on individual sections. Thanks, BTW, for your patience!--RegentsPark (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally got to look at what you've written up. I'm going to make the following changes: I'll modify the text in para 1 slightly (remove the word 'mutual' - most riots are not mutual at the time they occur; modify the many religions part to make the often coexist point better, and change christian fundamentalism to evangelism to better reflect the underlying factor. Second, I'm going to move paras 2 and 3 to a 'Civil and public response' section and modify them appropriately (per point 3 above). --RegentsPark (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And what kind of crap is this: "During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the revolt was fractured along religious lines,[25] and many Hindus dissatisfied by the Muslim rulers, supported the British.[26]" What about the 300,000 to 3,000,000 "native" Hindus and Muslims killed by British Christian forces during the "religious violence of 1857" :-) Oh yes, I forgot there are "reliable academic sources" to show that this never happened and for some strange reason does not fit into the category of "religious violence" although the disputed fact that it was fractured along religious lines does :-) Desione (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That, I agree, is crap. Get rid of it and I'll support you on that. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I made an attempt to better define the structure mainly for convenience. Desione (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with what you're doing (though I'd like to see that Ancient India section disappear completely!). We can quibble about specific sentences once the structure is done. Thanks for your efforts! --RegentsPark (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

Let me state a fact: if you think "Religious violence in India" has nothing to do with anti-Hindu violence, then I will move it to Violence by Hindus in India against other ethinicites. Then we will debate about what should be here, and what should go there. If you are disagreeing with the fact that anti-Hindu violence is real, then you should get your facts correct (and wikipedia here will not help you, unfortunately). Google is full of webpages, until you subscribe to Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial, common around here, then it will be a littler harder to find. Haphar's theory of what is religious violence and what is not is his own theory, and as such he is entitled to have his own opinions ("POV", a wikiaholic would say) - while they stay out of the article. I am personally entitled to my opinion that his theory is laughably ridiculous - Islamic terrorism - enough said. Regarding having found books about religious violence in India, who is saying it is not present in India? I am saying that no such country exists with two different religions coexisting, and no act of violence ever happening. Having found books doesn't make it worthy of having an article about it. For example, "Xenophobia in eastern Europe" is a well studied phenomena, but we don't have an article about it.

What it does attain, though, is a major part in the discussion. Your rejection of anything else is incorrect.

Anyway... every year there is a new crop of trolls and POV pushers, and my energy is better spent elsewhere. I would just say that "Religious violence" does not refer to "Hindus killing Muslims" - it refers to "Hindu and Muslims killing each other, and the people with local majority winning. And that is the fact. If you want to put otherwise in the article, go ahead and do it. Anyone believing that article will be brain dead anyway.--talk 14:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well your "Opinion" also remains a POV and as you are entitled to it, so are others to theirs. Moving on I am not propogating any theories just refuting some claims/ theories-3 of them in fact.

No 1 being that 1984 riots were not religious, excuse me whatever the garbled justification anyone has fact is only one religion's people ended up dying and the reason for their death was their religion.

2. Was a theory that I pointed out as wrong- that Hindus are a minority in East India- East India includes West Bengal,Orissa and Assam apart from the other smaller states in the North East,some of the North Eastern states (versus the claim of the whole of Eastern India) this statement might be true but it does not hold true for Eastern India. Overall for the region 74% are Hindus, for the 7 sisters of the North East it still worksout to 55 % of the population being Hindu. The only states in this region where Hindus are a minority are Meghalya, Mizoram and Nagaland- which by no stretch of the imagination can claim to be East India, not by size of these states nor by population.- Reference ( calculations will still have to be done).-[3].

A subset of this claim is the theory that the violence in Eastern India is anti Hindu- well AASU which started the agitation against "outsiders" in Assam has Hindu leaders, BODO and ULFA might have Bangladeshi support but the movement was started by local Hindus against mainly Bengali settlers in Assam. Assam is 65% Hindu and Hindu Assamese are not targeted by any of the groups, because of the Bangladesh support nor are "muslim Bengalis" which ends up with biharis being targetted- Biharis of any religion .Nagaland and Manipur have an issue with India vs independence/ closer fit with the Karen Burmese tribes and not an issue with Hindus.

3. Was again a theory that I said is wrong- that Hindus in South India are a minority. - Here is the data ( with reference points) 56% of the population being Hindu in Kerala [4], 78% of the population being Hindu in Tamil Nadu, 83.8% of the population being Hindu in Karnataka [5] and 89%of the population in Andhra being Hindu, the religion is definetly not in the minority in the region.[6]

Now at the end of all this If someone needs a theory to help them with their POV they should try this angle-Hinduism as a minority for a region might just work if one takes Punjab + J&K as a region, For is this combination Hindus still combine to 33% of the population vs 43% for Sikhs and 20% for Muslims.

Haphar (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If a group of Christians kill a Hindu, do you think it matters if Hindus are majority in the state? Don't think you are propagating the lie that only "majority kills minority"? No! Only "local majority" kills "local minority". If you want to somehow show that terrorism/separation movement is not religious in nature, then you might as well show me data about how some planets are changing my future, or that evolution is wrong.--talk 13:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And I added a quite impartial citation to the article at some point of time. Of course when it is violence by Hindus, even a random idiot in England is more credible than anyone saying otherwise abouto violence against Hindus. Here: http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=kshow&kid=8&

And you know what, when I said that people are entitled for their opinions, I meant this: you can believe in a theory and classify something as religious or non-religious. But that doesn't mean you are right, it just means I am not going to correct you. There are people fighting how "Islamic terrorism" is not about Islam but western influence in middle-east. But the reality is that it is Islamic in nature. Just like Godhara incident was about Hindus, and terrorism in eastern Indian is related to Christianity.

Anyway, you can edit the article in anyway you want. I have no interest in fighting anyone.--talk 13:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If the imaginary death of one Hindu by a Christian in a Hindu majority state can move you to waste so much of your precious time- maybe the 100's or thousands killed because they are a minority in the nation need some telling to atone for ? And ask them if being a minority impacted their lives- for certainly had they been in a majority they would not have died.

Well can someone state the Hindu majority state where Christian groups are going about killing Hindus ? Ah Ok got it- this is referring to the planets in the future that are mentioned above. If one want to make claims how about showing some data about "how many Hindus" were killed by Christians and in which Hindu majority state? It's so easy to make claims without data or facts to bother one's flights of fancy.

And certainly "Having a point of view" does not mean that it is right- but that statement is a double edged sword - so the point applies to everyone's point of view.

Let people fight about islam vs west- it is not relevant to this article- and whether it is reality is not decided by one persons opinions alone. Others might have a different point of view, r stating one's own opinion as reality does not neccecarily make it so.

BODO and ULFA are Eastern Indian terororists and have Hindu and Islamic influence but not Christian. Nagaland and Mizoram do not have a "Christian" separatism/ Terrorism movement going on- Mizo's and Naga's do not get along with each other and half the violence in Mizoram is about that- so much for Christian terrorism- the fight there is tribal in nature and they attack the army and not the local civilian population- but one would have to stay in the region to know that.

For impact, with a total population of 28 lakhs the Naga and Mizoram issue impacts some .3 % of the country's population-this not the defining problem the nation faces. Nor is it religious, you can have your point of view but it remains just that without data to back your claims.

I am not editing the article here- but showing some opinions and Points of view to be just that and not neccarily to be the universal acclaimed and undisputed truth that it is being garbed and presented as.

Haphar (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bodo groups are involved in a Hindu vs. Christian orgy of violence. People are completely ignorant of the dynamics of the NE, you wouldnt know that only the ULFA and Islamic Sevak Sangh are considered Islamic. Every other terror group is influenced by Christianity. They are the majority in Mizoram, Meghalaya, Nagaland, while almost no Hindus or Muslims live there. There are numerous documented attacks on Hindu dwellers in the NE. The only thing being "garbed and presented" is uninformed statements like the one above.Baka man 01:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

One can see who has provided any data in the discussion above and who has made hyperbolic statements not backed by data. Check wikipedia itself Bodo people,Bodoland ,Mizo National Front and Nagaland for further info and see if any Christian religious terrorist angle is reported.Haphar (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modern India Section

There is only one issue with respect to all major hindu-muslim violent acts. That is Babri mosque/Ayodhya. Hence, I have combined these various incidents into the subheading "Ayodhya and Babri Mosque" and will clean it up a bit.
Keep "Ayodhya / Babri Mosque" together with "Kashmiri Pandit" issue.
Keep "Conversion and Anti-Christian violence" together with North-East issue.
For some reason reverts seem to be starting again, so I would request people to please wait for a few days and allow me to clean this up. Desione (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The only reverts I see are to do with the use of 'First War of Independence'. I suggest you stick with 'Indian Rebellion of 1857' as the correct wikipedia term. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
removing 1984 Sikh riots since the roits, operation bluestar, sikh seperatism movement were not religious in nature.

I've reinstated the Sikh riots since they were directed at a group of people based on religion. Much of the text on bluestar and Sikh separatism can be dropped but the riots were religious violence as per the definition in the lead.--RegentsPark (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The riots were political violence perpetrated by a political party (i.e Congress). Just to keep things clear, keep in mind that Sonia Gandhi (a Christian) publically apologized to Sikhs on behalf of Congress. Also keep in mind that Congress and BJP (regarded by some as a Hindu nationalist party) are rivals. The third factor to keep in mind is that the largest political party in Punjab (Akali Dal) is closely allied with BJP. So the fact that the largest Sikh political party is allied with the largest so-called Hindu nationalist party is pretty self-explanatory. The BJP periodically rakes up the issue of 1984 riots in Parliament at the expense of congress and recently forced one of congress ministers to resign over the issue (24 years after the incident). So there was a political group, not religious group, that was targeting Sikhs. The affiliation of attackers was political not religious. Desione (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The affiliation of the attackers may have been political or religious but the attackees were clearly identifiable in terms of religion and numerous attacks specifically targeted the religion (cutting a Sikh man's hair before burning him, for example). It was religious violence as per the definition. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're both right. Perhaps the following line will help clarify matters for readers: "As we are finding out the hard way, religious violence is becoming, paradoxically, increasingly, "secular". The Anti-Sikh riots in 1984, the anti-Muslim riots in 1985 during an anti-reservation stir and the 'anti-Hindu' riots in Bangalore in 1986- they were all associated not so much with religious hatred as with political cost-calculations and/or economic greed." - Ashis Nandy, Time Warps: The Insistent Politics of Silent and Evasive Pasts. (The book was written before Gujarat, though.) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

misplaced comment:~~No you haven't. I am looking for reasons as to why you are reverting the historical section? Desione (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~????--RegentsPark (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)~~

Jalliawallh Bagh WAS religious violence because it was specifically perpetrated on the Sikhs who had gathered peacefully together (women children, old people, et all) on the occasion of Baisakhi (which besides the births of gurus is probably the most religious day for Sikhs). Jalliawallh Bagh is like a bunch of people shooting there guns off at Hindus celebrating holi or Muslims giving namaz or Christians gathered together on Christmas eve. This certainly fits into the category of religious violence. Desione (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of religious violence seems rather malleable! British troops shooting at a political gathering (the gathering was in defiance of the freedom of assembly restrictions in place and was part of larger demonstrations against the Rowlatt Act. But, by all means include it if you like. We'll let others figure this out. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this should clarify things. Desione (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source for this, as well as for the relevance of all the other stuff you clutter up the article with. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not a problem if you would just stop reverting everything that I am doing and allow me to work on it for a while. That is if I don't pass 3RR first becuase I would need to revert your reverts before making any changes. What a waste of useless time. Also please stop your large-scale reverts without any explanation. I see that other people are also reverting your changes (not just me). You are simply trying to disrupt things here. Desione (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Your last changes were up for a while before I went through and edited them. If you wish to make large-scale changes, please use the {{inuse}} tag and complete it in one session, or work on it in your own userspace before bringing it here for discussion.

Note also that all my changes were accompanied by individual edit comments, and I've explained the overall reason above.--Relata refero (disp.) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not preventing you from placing reference needed tags. So please do to your full satisfaction and those can be fixed as I go along. And no I don't want hours and hours working on an article in a sandbox only to have it reverted for petty excuses. And please clearly explain your reasons for constantly reverting historical sections. Desione (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to place reference needed tags and wait, since you were told beforehand the requirements for inclusion are reliable sourcdaty sources clearly saying the event you wish to include was religious violence. That, for about the fifth time, is the reason for the excision, by me and others, of parts of the material you're repeatedly trying to add. Find the references and come back, your preferred version's still in the history. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources given so far are reliable and discuss the events in detail. If you are not going to help in anyway, please stop reverting. There is no rule in wikpedia that says things have to be perfect (according to whose definition). So the article will be improved and all things will be referenced as those concerns are brought up provided people here are willing to be reasonable here. Desione (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, please bring sources that specify that each of the episodes you wish to add is primarily religious in nature, as well as violence involving loss of life. That's the first thing you need to do when adding something, not something that can be postponed. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So the mere act of destroying temples being used for religious activity and constructing mosques on top is not "religious violence" (as per common sense) so as to require citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is getting extremely petty fast. Desione (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, there are a million places on WP where its discussed, so I don't think adding it here makes any sense whatsoever. That being said, no, I prefer to think we value lives over architecture when it comes to defining violence. Enough people have been killed to provide enough context. Note also that references to demolitions are preserved even after excision of some material. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Relata refero. You are making wholesale changes to the article and including a lot of historical information that can only be loosely justified for inclusion. If you would prefer to not spend a great deal of time only to have your work reverted, you could either discuss the material first on the discussion page before you include it, or make incremental changes ensuring that the additions are properly referenced using reliable sources; or live with the danger that your work will be reverted.--RegentsPark (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Historical descriptions are fully justified since 1) the topic of this article is "religious violence in india", 2) religious violence today has historical events as their basis, 3) the historical section is not very big, 4) there is no rule in wikipedia that historical sections don't have to be included.

If you are saying that some people here have a problem against describing events in detail, I can understand that reasoning. But what I can't understand is the petty excuses being given to exclude items in the historical section. The article is being written for people who are not just concerned about "Anti-Christian violence" in India, but people from all different religious groups (either in india or outside it) who want to obtain a clear understanding of nature of religious violence in India. So again, the only excuse for not describing historical events is to hide information. Desione (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The "historical context" section is still too large and unencyclopaedic. I suggest you let it go, and focus on citing what remains in there. I don't know what you mean by "anti-Christian violence", most of the focus is on Hindu-Muslim tension. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No one will argue against meaningful historical descriptions. But, a wholesale inclusion of historical events that have little direct connection with modern acts of religious violence seems pointless and confusing. The original article was fine with a minimal of history and a description of the major acts of religious violence in India. Any historical causes (that directly relate to) for specific events could and should have been included within each section. For example, a statement along the lines 'India was constantly invaded by muslim rulers from Afghanistan and Central Asia and these invaders plundered and destroyed many temples, including the temple at Ayodya,' in the Babri Masjid section is appropriate. Listing Muhamad bin Qasim etc. is not useful. Nor was the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Or the anti-Buddhist king which has nothing to do with modern religious violence.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

People who are reading articles on wikipedia will expect to find more holistic and complete information on the subject of religious violence in India (as opposed to what is present in say google news - http://www.google.com/news) and that is what is being given here. Simply repeating the same "modern religious violence stuff" that can be accessed very easily elsewhere is pointless as compared to giving a holistic treatment of the topic which is definitely encyclopedic and extremely useful. Desione (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Religious violence in India" not "Religious violence in Modern India", so I don't see any reason why we should not give weight to anything else besides modern aspects of religious violence. Otherwise, create an article titled "Religious violence in modern India" and do whatever you are proposing in that article. Desione (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Or you could start Religious violence in the Indian subcontinent to distinguish things from the Republic of India. Whatever. The point is that you need to go out and get references attesting to relevance. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, mark the particular once that you are worried about as "citation needed" and I will add an underconstruction tag to the page then put as many citations as I can first thing just for your satisfaction. But simply reverting things is disruptive when the article is clearly in a state of flux. It doesn't help in making any progress. Desione (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All the ones that I removed. It would be neat if you found a citation for one at a time, and then put it into the article. No hurry. WP:DEADLINE. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

People will find complete information in wikipedia but not necessarily in one article. Historical material should go in History of India or Religion in India or Indian Rebellion of 1857 and readers can look the material up there. Wholesale inclusion here is not justified. Take for example the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Characterizing that as religious violence is a tad extreme since the British were not attempting to exterminate Hindus and Muslims during the war. Perhaps there was some element of anti-Christianity violence on the part of the sepoys (in Delhi, for example) but arguing that the rebellion was religious in nature is incorrect. And, note the slippery slope in using that argument. If the event was religious (get the Christians outta here; kill the heathen Hindus), then the justification for calling it a 'War of Independence' collapses and it becomes an internecine battle of religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Everthing in the article is covered elsewhere, so the justification for excluding something that is covered elsewhere is invlid. As far as India's First War of Independence is concerned, religious component was undeniably significant and is a well accepted fact (and there are no debates over this). Desione (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There was undoubtedly a religious component on the part of the Hindu and Muslim sepoys (seeking out Christians in Delhi, for example). But, other than that, I can't see other examples of 'religious violence'. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What was it caused by? Desione (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean what the trigger was, it was the alleged use of pork/beef tallow in cartridges and associated religious taboos. However, that was the trigger and the causes were more complex than that. Whatever the triggers or causes, you're confusing events with causes. An event of religious violence can have secular causes (the accidental fire in the coach that triggered the Gujarat riots) and conversely, an event of secular violence can have religious causes. The rebellion of 1857 is generally recognized as various groups in India fighting to expel the British from India and the British fighting to retain their domination over India, purely secular, and that is why we can debate the term First War of Independence. Once again, other than the targeting of Christians, what component of the violence was religious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That was just the final spark. If that wouldn't have triggered the revolt something else would have. The "threat" to religion of local indian population and sepoys played a major role as a result of missionary activity sanctioned by company charter (which included not just the large scale missionaries, but also company officials, and often supported by directors of the east india company) and this is why many books characterise the war along the lines of "a semi-national religious war seeking independence from british opression". How was it suppressed: by massive large scale killing ("hundreds of thousands" of casualities). So personal opinions aside, the "threath to religious freedom" was a major cause of the event which was only suppressed by a massive large scale slaghter sactioned by the british side going upto "hundreds of thousands". Clearly religious issues were more than significant and there is again no debate about this in publications. Desione (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the multiple causes of the rebellion, and the way the rebellion played out, you may be giving Undue weight to religious aspects of the rebellion. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I missed your comment regarding accidental fire in train. I will put it in the description if you can give me a NPOV citation discussing it from both sides. Thanks Desione (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

India train fire 'not mob attack', 2005-01-17, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4180885.stm. Quoted in the Gujarat Riots article. I'm not sure what you mean by 'discussing it from both sides'.--RegentsPark (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baisakhi & Jallianwalla Bagh

1. Baisakhi is not just a Sikh festival- check out it's description on wikipedia itself to begin with-it's a Punjabi one and celebrated by Punjabi's even in Pakistan side of Punjab. It does have religious significance for Sikhs as it marked the start of the Khalsa but the more religious significance for the Sikhs is Guru Nanak's birthday as it marks the start of Sikhism. Even Holi is a religious festival for Sikhs so example of "hindus killed during holi" is also not quite apt. Also no data /references are given as to the religious identity of those killed in Jallianwalla Bagh.

Well, a Gurudwara is not a Hindu place of worship. However, at any given time there are probably more hindus visiting a (major) Gurudwara then Sikhs. So my apologies, but I don't see the point. Desione (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

2.The proponent for including Jallianwalla Bagh has elsewhere opposed anti sikh riots based on the logic that the killers were not of one religion but of a political outfit (though that logic is flawed). But for arguments sake one can ask the proposer to keep the same set of standards-and ask the question that for Jallianwalla Bagh the soldiers doing the killing/ firing were from the "Indian" British Army-or locals to India- what was their religion ? No data given so far shows that they were of one religion. Haphar (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a stretch to include the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre under religious violence. The firings on the civilian protesters assembled at the Bagh were part of nationwide protests against the Rowlatt Act. There was no intent to single out Sikhs. I propose that this section be deleted. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Sikh roits were purely based on stereotypical identification of victimes based on the profile of killers of Indira Gandhi - such acts happen even today quite commonly all across the world and are not identified as religious violence. If two beggers would have killed Indira Gandhi, congress mobs would have hunted down all the beggers in delhi in retaliation. Desione (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Atleast there is sufficient religious basis in case of jalliawallah bagh given that it was organized on Baisakhi (or Birth of Khalsa) day and the gathering did have a religious component as well (not just political). Desione (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A mob not spontaneous ( see the link given in the section) but hired and incited by a political partiy's leaders with voter lists and addresses of Sikh families is not "stereotypical identification" but much more organised and thought through than that. Haphar (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortuately they would have been targeted with or without voter lists. All I am saying is that the identification of victims was based on sterotyping a particular group with the killers and not becuase of any religious aspects. Desione (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rajiv Gandhi got killed by some people who were Tamil and from Sri Lanka as well as Hindus, no one killed Tamils/Hindus/Lankans in retaliation, same family so not quite the same yardstick was it ? So the Beggar/ other stereotyping did not quite happen did it then ? And the perpetrators of Godhra were Muslim, in the "stereotyped retaliation" a lot of Muslims got killed in Gujarat, and it is still called religious violence is it not ?Haphar (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Becuase, lessons of Anti-Sikh riots and Rajiv Gandhis IPKF quagmire in Sri Lanka (which actually caused the killing) had been learned by then. No body wanted to get into another quagmire in Sri Lanka specially when there was an active civil war in progress in there. From what I recall information was strictly controlled in the aftermath of Rajiv Gandhi assination becuase everyone feared that Anti-Sikh type riots will be repeated upto the extent that the radios continued to play upbeat music over the night and the newspapers next morning were told what the print. And most of all the politicians didn't get involved. Desione (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Godra was clearly religious in nature and so was its organized response. Godhra can hardly be equated to Rajiv/Indira assinations Desione (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And the killing of Indira Gandhi by "Sikhs" in response to Bluestar was also religious in nature as it was in response to a religious place being invaded. And in Rajiv's assasination case, how does a retaliating crowd killing people based on ethnicity on the streets of Delhi get involved in "the quagmire of Sri Lanka" ? They just do their killings and get off- fact is that the "beggars"/ stereotyped group were not of a religion separate from the crowds is what kept the violence from happening. And if politicians were involved in the "so called riots" after 1984 it is not quite a "reaction" killing based on "stereotyping" but state organised killings of people of one religion- makes it religious ( the party was in power and the police and army were held back, the police being involved in some cases).

IG's assassination was based on a "terror" mindset and cannot be explained on religious grounds since bluestar at best was a heavy-handed reaction to a preceding invasion of temple by terrorist group which was using the temple as an arms dump and as a place to plan violent terror operations. Such uses of religious places are explicitly against any religious or international norm.

Did IG plan to "convert" all Sikhs? Did she have a problem with Sikh religious teachings? Was she planning to breakdown the golden temple? No, the motivation was to take golden temple out of the hands of terrorist who had "invaded" the temple against accepted and valid uses of a religious place of worship. Again, I am missing a religious aspect here(?) Desione (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The killings in "1984 Anti-Sikh riots" alone by itself had no religious motivation and cannot be considered "religious in nature" since the Bluestar itself was a reaction to a previous invasion of the golden temple. Desione (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, just to be clear, my problem is not against including Anti-Sikh riots, the problem is that if you classify this as religious violence, then there is no reason why indo-pak wars, iraq war, war on terrorism (afghanistan) should not be classified as religious violence as well. Just because a certain group claims justification for their actions in religion does not mean that such a justification actually exists. Perhaps we should amend our definition of religious violence to include some text to say that: a violent act may be perceived as "religious violence" even though it may not be based on any religious causes or motivations and we can make sure of the following text as was suggested earlier Desione (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"As we are finding out the hard way, religious violence is becoming, paradoxically, increasingly, "secular". The Anti-Sikh riots in 1984, the anti-Muslim riots in 1985 during an anti-reservation stir and the 'anti-Hindu' riots in Bangalore in 1986- they were all associated not so much with religious hatred as with political cost-calculations and/or economic greed." - Ashis Nandy, Time Warps: The Insistent Politics of Silent and Evasive Pasts. (The book was written before Gujarat, though.) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that a 'non-religious' nature of the violence during the Sikh riots seems to exist only for you. Almost everyone else classifies it as being religious. A reliable source that states that the violence against Sikhs in 1984 was secular in nature may help convince the rest of us. Meanwhile, I'll say this about your examples on terrorism. If the people of New York rooted out muslims and killed them after 9/11, that would be religious violence, the war in Afghanistan certainly isn't. Also, your example of Indo-Pak wars is a terrible disservice to the many Indian army soldiers who are muslim. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and I would put 1984 riots in "ethnic violence" rather than "religious violence" as there are no direct or indirect religious issues involved in 1984 riots. But I think I have wasted enough time on a dead issue and emotional arguments aside let's keep this in and Jalliwallah (which actually has some religious aspects) out. Desione (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mobs for hire brought in from outside by politicians cannot kill people of a religion as they would not know where the people of a religion stayed, so apart from stray people found on the street the killing would not have happened to the level it did without the voter lists.

The mechanism used to identify victims is not a point of contention in my opinion. Desione (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the Jallianwallah bagh article- it gives a lead upto the situation where violence and killings happened before prohibhitory orders were issued- and there is no data given to show the killed were of only one religion nor that the killers were of only of one religion. Before removing the section again please get other editors involved to agree first. Haphar (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

ha ha ha ha, I am totally disagree with Desione’s arguments on 1984 riots issues. Who said to you that was not religious violence? Do you have any evidence in that? It was clear evidence of violence that was done by religious madness. And because of religion it was the subject and object of the collective violent behavior. Don’t shut your door against truths and don’t close your eyes and convince yourself (&others) as it is dark. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You missed the whole debate :-) The contention is that it was religious because people who happened to be targeted were of a particular religious community. On the other hand it was not religious because there was no religious motivation for the event and it was not driven by religious hatred. [7]

Since User:Desione, in true wikipedia spirit (Agree to disagree), has agreed to keep the Jallianwalla Bagh section out and the Sikh Riot article in, I suggest we appreciate his willingness to drop the matter and stop pushing the discussion - and his patience! Rather than ridicule, I suggest a barnstar.--RegentsPark (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Reference to US Human Rights Report

The report is controversial and considered hypocritical and hence cannot be used as a basis to build opinion on religious violence in India or any other country:

Any reasons to keep it ?

If no one wants to argue for keeping this text, I will remove it in a while. Thanks. Desione (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it is hypocritcal does not make what it says untrue. Nor does being contovershal (odd that most of the links provided seem to be from countries in the report, hardley unbiased) mean that it should not be included. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)]]

Here are some links to show that report is biased (not from countries that were accused in the report):

ANNUAL U.S. HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT GARNERS CRITICISM/PRAISE, EXPOSES U.S. 'DOUBLE STANDARD' [8]
U.S. Rights Report Should Include U.S. Abuses [9]
US human rights report spares allies[10]

It certainly can't go in the lead, but I am willing to create a section titled "International Perceptions and Comparisons" and put it there along with other such reports with a little bit of explanation on nature of each report - still its a waste of space and to much work to include just one report. So I suggest we leave it out. Desione (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

ANNUAL U.S. HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT GARNERS CRITICISM/PRAISE, EXPOSES U.S. 'DOUBLE STANDARD' [11] Does not say that what the report contains is unture, just that it is incompleate, moreover it includes much praise for the report, for examle "Several, notably in the opposition and independent press, used the criticisms in the report to prod their governments to redress internal human rights violations, as did New Delhi's centrist Asian Age, which asserted, "[The report] should make the Vajpayee government sit up and take notice."", about the situation in India, by an indian source. Or this "SOUTH ASIA-- Editors in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh anticipated that the "sharp criticisms" and "damning indictments" contained in the report would "prove an eye opener." A New Delhi writer conceded, "Unfortunately, much of what has been said in the report is true." While several decried "American interference," others, such the Peshawar-based, independent Frontier Post cheered that "foreigners have now begun to say what is the real state of affairs."". Clearly this article bleives the report to be true, just flawed. As do comentators in India.

U.S. Rights Report Should Include U.S. Abuses [12] Does not say the report is wrong, just flawed an indead the article says "My opinion: Unlike Venezuela's Chavez, or the Chinese government, I don't think it's wrong for the United States to do a report on other countries' human rights abuses. On the contrary. Those who cry intervention in their countries' internal affairs are just using an outdated interpretation of national sovereignty to justify their abuses of power.

In fact, all countries should be doing similar reports, denouncing human rights violations wherever they take place. But what doesn't make sense is to lash out against everybody else, and not say a word about yourself."

US human rights report spares allies[13] Does not state the reprt is factiauly incorrect, just biased in favour of US allies. As this page is about India not Israle that critismism is not valied. not one of the the above three links claim the article is unture, and two make it clear that it's vontents are factual and worthy of reporting. As such it is a vital and usefull link on this page. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)]]

We can include it in a section titled "International Perceptions and Comparisons" along with other such reports, but not in the lead. Putting it in lead is giving too much importance to one report which is obviously highly controversial/biased/etc. Putting it in the lead without any explanation is a sharp misleading endorsement of the report. ???? Desione (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And yes, most democratic countries do have such reports (maybe not in same format), but usually the report is restricted to "internal" violations. There are autonomous/independent bodies that look after such issues as opposed to "ministry of foreign affairs" (counterpart of US state department) Desione (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Its generally considered the most valuable of sources on this subject. If the Indian government had an official statement rebutting the findings, that can go in as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is controversial and can't be authoritative since it does not include human rights violations of US and allies. I have backed up my claims well. The report requires explanation which can be done in a separate section with other such reports. Report being authoritative is your personal opinion. It is not published by a "neutral party" Desione (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason for the state dept to not be neutral about a US ally, the reverse is likely. IN any case, the Jpost http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-108556531.html says] "the media and Congress treat the report as authoritative". Good enough for us. Restoring. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No becuase the report is controversial, is biased, not published by neutral party, and not comprehensive; hence cannot be in the lead because it gives too much weight to this report as opposed to other such reports. Desione (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is no evidance provided (at least unbiased evidance)that the report is untrue, and indead that many of the sources given make it clear that it is factualy accurate then sould be in te 'lead'. It is considerd factualy accurate on the subjects it comments on (as a number o the sources provided clearly indicate). It is considerd factualy accurate on the subject of this page (India), by Indian commentators. The critism is not (it would seem) that it is untrue, but that it does not mention countris that are not the subject of this article. This does not seem (to me) a vaild reason to not have it as source for this article. [[Slatersteven (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)]]

The report being in the lead is your personal opinion. It is not a comprehensive report (see references), Its not unbiased (see references), and it is controversial (see references). Hence the report requires explanation and can't be in the lead. There are other such reports as well, such as from UN, Amnesty international, etc. Why should those reports not be in the lead as opposed to US State Department report which is NOT neutral since state department itself has been involved in human rights controversies in Iraq. Such a report cannot be used to judge the conduct of other countries and can only be used as "international opinion".

It is not being used to judge, it is being used to state the fact that India has issues of religious tension. This article is not about Human rights violations around the world, as such the reports incompleatnes (with regards to other countires) is not relevent), nor bias as no evidance has been forthcoming to show that the report is biased against India, just that it ignore the actions of it's allies. Nor is the fact it is controvrsal reason enough to exclude it, especialy as most of the source you provide seem to indiacte an acceptance of the reports findings. [[Slatersteven (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)]]

No one is excluding it. It is being placed in an appropriate section titled "International Perceptions and Comparisons" and other reports will be put there as well. To say that this particular report should somehow be put on a pedestal by putting it on the lead is your personal opinion. Its just one report and comes out of an organization (US government, state department that itself has been involved in Human rights abuses. Hence, it cannot be in the lead. Desione (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

State department is NOT an independent human rights organization. It is a political organization whose primary goal is to look after interests of the country that it serves just like the primary goal of Indian Foriegn minstry is to look after indian foreign interests. Desione (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The US State Department isn't trying to make India look bad by reporting rampant human rights violations. Ironically, Human Rights Watch, an independent human rights organization, has reports that are far more damning. [14] Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Then put the Human Rights Watch report into the "International Perceptions & Comparision" section along with State department report and any other reports that you can find, along with a critique of each report. Putting the state department report in the lead is pure nonsense and pov pushing. Human rights reports from countries that themselves have been involved in massive Human Rights abuses CANNOT be put on a pedestal in articles that comment on Human Rights in other countries.Desione (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? No one, not even you, has challenged the what it says, just it's not right for the US to say it. As it is accepted that what it says is obstensivly true the fact it does not condem it's self or it's allies is not relevent to it's acceptability. India is not hostile to the US and vica versa, the US has nothing to gain by making false claims (which is not the case any way) as such the report can be seen as indepedant of national or nationalist agendas). It's exclusion from the header is also POV pushing, tryng to claim it's findings are preception, when no evidance has been provided to demonstrate it is anything but factual. An attempt to undermine it's creditility becasue it is an indepedant report that does not tie in with your perceptions. Of course the US state department is a branch of the US governemnt, is there hostility between India and the US? Is the US attemting to undermine India? [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)]]

Well, I don't think I was against including the state department report. However, if you insist that it goes in the lead, then so should other more independent, less controversial, and better accepted reports. And if you want to add reports from perhaps the one and the only hostile country then I am ok with that too as long as the context of hostility is explained :-) Desione (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nap Time

User:Desione is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia to continue editing this article after a month or so due to unexpected busyness (or business - whichever sounds cooler). :-)

Me too. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)