Talk:V. T. Rajshekar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

V. T. Rajshekar is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Ridiculous

Past edits to this article were ridiculous and laughable. Nothing was sourced and the article was clearly edited by Rajshekhar's fringe supporters. I have changed the article with SOURCED statements establishing his extremist views and balanced the article out. Henceforth, please don't vandalize the article with garbage and follow wikipedia's rules while editing.Hkelkar 05:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Please respond to this request for comment.

  • I am anxious that this article, a biography of a living person, contains comments that are not currently adequately sourced. Itsmejudith 20:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply - Could you perhaps magnify some problem areas?Bakaman Bakatalk 21:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the material is not properly sourced, it means that it is not verifiable. As such, material that is not verifiable can be deleted if such sources are not forthcoming. If the material is controversial and it is unsourced or poorly sourced you can delete it without waiting. See our policy about Biographies of living people. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification - I meant like actual bits of the article. I know perfectly well what BLP is having been accused of violating it countless times even with reliable sources.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Emphasize Clarification - What do you think is not properly sourced specifically? I believe that we have been very careful with sourcing all aspects well.I raised this matter on Category talk:Anti-Semitic people and there was agreement that it was well-sourced.Hkelkar 03:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify. General comments on the references used in the article would be welcome. Is the range of sources adequate? Are they all reliable sources? Are they up to date? Are they fairly represented? Itsmejudith 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The Dalit Voice publications are used as primary sources here (to show VTR's opinions). The other sources are scholarly and fully satisfy WP:RS.A partisan communist website is cited to indicate that his views are repudiated even in leftist circles.Hkelkar 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is appropriate to use the Dalit Voice as a primary source in this article if it can be verified that the subject of this article is without question the author of the works cited, and the works are used only to source what the subject has written. The problem I have is that the DV is being used for more than that. It appears to be supporting original research. I find the first sentence of the article to be a painfully obvious example. "...but has published numerous anti-Hindu publications, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic articles glorifying Hitler and the Third Reich. 1 2" Unless there is a reliable secondary source which characterizes the subject's work or views in those same terms, it is original research and a BLP violation, and should be removed. And I'm only at the first sentence... - Crockspot 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Rajshekhar is the chief editor of Dalit Voice, and I am citing the Dalit Voice website itself that published anti-Semitic articles glorifying the Third Reich (check the page that I have linked to).The DV broadcasts were made by Rajshekhar only.Plus, check the web page of the Maoist site that I linked to for Dalit Voice (led by Rajshekhar) making anti-semitic "Jewish Conspiracy Theories", as well as the cited work on antisemitism which cites that Rajshekhar glorofoed the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.Hkelkar 03:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I have reworded it to avoid violation of WP:BLP.Hkelkar 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a good start. I have updated the intro further. Crockspot 03:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've worked through the article, removing synthesis, OR, and POV, and indicating where there should be more references. When the references are more or less complete, I will try to come back and update all the ref tags with proper citation templates and info, so that the notes diaplay more complete information about the sources. Crockspot 04:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement by Rajshekhar that "There are no conversions to Judaism" is patently false. The Ger Tzedek (proselyte of rightousness) is the name of he who was born a gentile and who has converted to Judaism. You have to go through the Beth Din, Mikvah and get a Shtar Giur to be a Jew. It is rare, but not unheard of. Similarly, conversions to Hinduism also take place like the case of David Frawley. Hinduism generally takes a neutral position on conversion as, given the plurality of the religion, Hindus are permitted to deify Christ, Allah, or anybody else. This is all well-documented and must be qualified as a falsehood on Rajshekhar's part.Hkelkar 04:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether the statements are true are false is irrelevant. Inserting (this statement is false) into the article is still an unsourced statement, editorializing, and original research. We report what he said. We do not make conclusions about what he said. Drawing conclusions based on source material is synthesis, and is the very essence of original research. Let the reader draw that conclusion. Crockspot 12:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be used to promulgate misinformation. I am linking to articles on conversion to Judaism and Hinduism to clarify (since Rajshekhar brought it up in his quotes, linking is legit).Hkelkar 12:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That is still straying into original research, using the articles you mention as primary sources. No synthesis, no judgement, no editorializing. If there is a reliable secondary source that says that "his statements are false", then you can use that, but taking a generic source as a primary, and leading the reader to a conclusion, is OR. This article should make no judgements about the morality or accuracy of the subject's statements or views. It should only report, in a neutral way, what he has said or written, and what other reilable sources have said about him, his writings, and his views. If you look carefully, you'll note that none of the edits I have made have removed any actual information from the article. I have only adjusted how that information is presented (hopefully in a NPOV way), and how the sources are used. All biographical information on Wikipedia about living persons is required to be written this way. WP is simply an organized collection of verified data, not an organ for changing people's views. Those statements are clearly quoted, and clearly presented as his words. If they were unquoted and presented as fact, then you would have good reason to refute them. But we are simply reporting what he said, not saying what he said is the truth. Crockspot 13:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing for dismissal statement

Why would a book by Elst be an adequate source for this statement? As you know, this writer is himself a controversial figure and many editors, including myself, have argued that he doesn't count as an academic source. But whether he is an academic or not is not relevant to this particular point. As you know, big claims need big evidence, and what is needed here is a *news* source, rather than an academic book. There is no reason to think that Elst would be privy to any inside information that the rest of us do not have access to.

As I read about Rajshekar's political positions I can easily understand that a mainstream publication like the Indian Express would have eventually found his views to be too way out for them. But that is not the same as proving that he was dismissed as opposed to, for instance, reaching an agreement with the newspaper that he would resign. Perhaps a search in the news archives for the dates around the time of his departure might yield something to indicate the circumstances under which he left. For example, did he write a departing article or did the newspaper include a statement about his departure? What did the other major papers say? Itsmejudith 09:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Valid questions.I will research Rajshekhar's dismissal. However, Elst is presently the most reliable source I could find so it stays.Are you accusing Elst of lying?WP:AGF!!Hkelkar 10:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for offering to research the circumstances of his departure from Indian Express. WP:AGF applies to us in the WP community, not to sources. We must always read sources with a sceptical eye. Although I am not accusing Elst of deliberately lying perhaps he was repeating as fact something that was only rumour. Or he might have been trying to provoke Rajshekar into responding. That's why, especially when making claims about living people, we have to restrict ourselves to sources that are fact-checked. Itsmejudith 10:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

V.T Rajshekar was dismissed from the Indian Express for "writing articles to other papers" which was considered against conduct rules. But the point is this is just an excuse to get rid of him as he became a thorn in the flesh of the Brahminical colleagues in the office. This I have verified from his colleagues in the Bangalore (India) office of the Indian Express. tahir123

Thank you, but unless there is a published document of some kind that confirms this - so that a reader of the encyclopedia could check if necessary - there is no reliable source for him being dismissed and the article should simply state that he worked for the Indian Express for a certain time. Itsmejudith 21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publications

I recommend making a publications section, with seperate subsections for Books, and Pamphlets, and splitting all the pubs up that way. (If anyone knows which are which). Crockspot 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV systemic-bias mess

I have added a POV tag as this article shows systemic bias towards anti-anti-semitism. This chap is Indian, and so far as one can tell from the little information given (especially the book list) mainly concerned with Indian issues, but the article doesn't reflect that. Hoylake 14:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new version

Please see this new version. NB that I still don't regard it as ideal, as it refers to many statements by Rajshekar that are difficult to check out, e.g. old broadcasts. And it still does not fully explain his arguments in his own terms before the critical stuff on anti-Semitism. Also, the list of books and pamphlets is too long. Perhaps we should restrict the list to those that have an ISBN or have been cited by his critics.

V. T. Rajshekar, in full Vontibettu Thimmappa Rajshekar, also known as V. T. Rajshekar Shetty, (born 1932) is an Indian journalist who is the founder and editor of Dalit Voice[1][2]., which has been described as "India’s most widely circulated Dalit journal".[3] He was formerly a journalist on the Indian Express, one of India's leading English language daily papers, where he worked for 25 years.[3]

He is also the author of a great number of pamphlets and books, mainly published by his own organisation.

[edit] Positions

[edit] General position

Rajshekar is associated with the wing of the Dalit movement that has been called an “Afro-Dalit project” because it links the idea of freedom for Dalits conceived of as an indigenous people to the wing of Black liberation that defines Black people as people of African origin. This has been called “epidermal determinism”.[4] Thus Rajshekar makes claims about Dalits being “the original inhabitants of India” and stresses their physical resemblance to Africans. [5] Nevertheless Rajshekar also points out Dalits are not easily distinguishable from other Indians by their skin colour. [6]. He is the founder of the "Dalit Voice" publication, which disseminates information about the "Dalit Voice Movement" [7], a fringe wing of the broader Dalit Movement[2].

[edit] Attitude to castes

Rajshekar’s book ‘’Caste: a nation within the nation’’ declares the Indian castes as nations within the “nation” of India. The book recommends the strengthening of each caste as opposed to the eradication of the caste system. Rajshekhar further demands that the Dalits be deemed superior to all other castes and build a segregated Dalitist state in India.[8]. He has expressed similar views in interviews.[9].

[edit] Attitude to Jews

Rajshekar’s position was described as anti-Semitic in an authoritative survey of contemporary anti-Semitism. [2]. He has claimed that the Jews and the Brahmins of India have the same ethnic origin.[citation needed] He alleges that Jews are "oppressing the Muslims" today and the "Brahmins are persecuting the original inhabitants of India".[citation needed] He has stated that the hoax book Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a real Jewish conspiracy [10] and that Indian Jews were "join(ing) hands (with Hindus) to crush Muslims, Blacks and India's Dalits".[11].

In broadcasts, Rajshekar called Brahmins "The Jews of India" on the grounds that a "Jew is one who is a born Jew. There is no conversion to the Jewish religion". According to him, since "a Brahmin is one who is a born Brahmin", they are "as bad as the Jews". He went on to allege that Jews and Brahmins had joined hands "in a big way" in the USA, England and Europe[11].

Dalit Voice has published articles about "Zionist conspiracies" regarding Hitler and the Third Reich[12][13].

An article in Dalit Voice alleged that “The First World War, the Second World War, the establishment of Communism, the rise of Hitler, were also systematically planned and executed by Zionists.” With his sex scandal, Bill Clinton was the “victim of a Zionist conspiracy”, for the Zionists, who “control the entire American politics, economy and the media as well”, are “angry that Clinton refused to finish the ‘demon’ of Islam and render all-out support to Israel” [14]Dalit Voice has also voiced support for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the holocaust.[15].

[edit] Confiscation of passport

In 1986 Rajshekar’s passport was confiscated because of ““anti-Hinduism writings outside of India.” The same year, he was arrested in Bangalore under India’s Terrorism and Anti-Disruptive Activities Act. Rajshekar told Human Rights Watch that this arrest was for an editorial he had written in Dalit Voice, that another writer who republished the editorial was also arrested, and that he was eventually released with an apology. [3].

[edit] Books and pamphlets

  • Brahminism : father of fascism, racism, nazism: Bangalore : Dalit Sahitya Academy, 1993
  • Mahatma Gandhi and Babasaheb Ambedkar: clash of two values: the verdict of history. Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 1989
  • Dalit: the black Untouchables of India (foreword by Y.N. Kly). Atlanta; Ottawa: Clarity Press, c1987 ISBN 0932863051 (Originally published under title: Apartheid in India. Bangalore: Dalit Action Committee, 1979)
  • Apartheid in India: an international problem, 2nd rev. ed. Publisher: Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 1983
  • Who is the mother of Hitler? Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 1984
  • Ambedkar and his conversion: a critique. Bangalore: Dalit Action Committee, Karnataka, 1980
  • Caste - A Nation within the Nation
  • Development Redefined
  • Weapons to Fight Counter Revolution
  • Shape of things to come
  • Grave - Diggers of History
  • Why Dalits Hate Hinduism?
  • India as a Failed State
  • Brahminism
  • Aggression on Indian Culture
  • India's Intellectual Desert
  • The Zionist Arthashastra (Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion)
  • India's Muslim Problem
  • Judicial Terrorism (with Iqbal Ahmed Shariff)
  • When Dalits Disobeyed Final Words of their Father
  • Dalit Voice - A New Experiment in Journalism
  • In defence of Brahmins
  • West Losing War on Muslims
  • Muslims and Mustadafeen

[edit] Several problems with this version

  1. Too much whitewash. You have removed several references that showcase his anti-Hindu and anti-semitic views
  2. His support for Islamic terrorism needs to be added
  3. basically you can't remove Elst's quotes for the reasons that they are attributed (not used as secondary and tertiary sources) and that they are supported by authoritative sources in this case.

(will add more)Hkelkar 00:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous. I've read several of Rajshekar's books. He's a nutcase, but this article greatly distorts his views, presenting him as some sort of neo-Nazi obsessed with Jews! I don't remember reading anything about Jews in the booklets of his I've read, an his references to Nazis are all about their alleged links to Brahmanism - presenting the latter as the model for the nasty Nazis. Paul B 11:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


I don't know about the books (they are many), but in Dalit Voice, there seems to be many anti-semitic statments, search the site for Jew(s) and Holocaust.

--RF 12:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been definite antisemitic statements in DV, which can be cited here. But the article is badly structured and gives too much weight to the antisemitism dimension rather than to the attempted critique of Brahamanism. Please go ahead and re-order, summarise and add salient facts. Itsmejudith 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Itsmejudith is correct, there is a little too much focus on his anti-Semitism and not enough focus on his polemic anti-Hindu rants.Bakaman 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Please let us try to keep this article as neutral as possible, given that the subject is a very controversial writer. His viewpoints should be briefly explained here, although I think a lot of the detail should be in the Dalit Voice article instead. Adding him to all sorts of categories does not help the article towards neutrality. It is not necessary if we have summarised the viewpoints carefully in the article. Itsmejudith 15:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not if the categories are appropriate. Categories exist for a reason, namely to guide the reader, which, in this case, it does. Rajshekhar's views are virtually identical to those of Lyndon LaRouche, David Duke and Mahmud Ahmadinejad, and his abuse of academic history to further political propaganda is along the likes of his ideological opposite PN Oak, all of whom are listed in these categories. Nahartasanhedrin 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
His views can't be identical to the views of LaRouche AND Ahmadinejad, sorry. All this would be much easier were the article properly sourced. Itsmejudith 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
They are as far as Jews are concerned, which is why this fellow openly supported Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial (and, for all intents and purposes, subscribes to the same conspiracy theories as LaRouche). Nahartasanhedrin 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In which case what you need is a recent quote from DV or another publication of his (hopefully DV because it's online, not one of the pamphlets) denying the holocaust, and then he can be added to the category "holocaust deniers". Sorry, but what you see as "for all intents and purposes" I see as WP:OR. I notice that while LaRouche is in [[Category:Conspiracy theorists]] but not [[Category:Antisemitism]] it is the other way round for Ahmadinejad. Let's just keep this as a short article sticking to the known facts. See Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin for examples - except they were important historical figures, while the subject of this article isn't. Itsmejudith 16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this and this and this then? Nahartasanhedrin 16:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this for Jewish conspiracy theories? How about this] for antisemitic accusation of "Jewish Lobby"Nahartasanhedrin 16:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's antisemitic. It's in Dalit Voice. Would be better added to that article, since none of the pieces are signed by Rajshekar. Also, the article should really be written up from secondary sources. DV in this context is a primary source. Look, I honestly do not want to keep out of the article everything that might reflect badly on the subject. However, it still is a biography of a living person. It should be impeccably referenced. Itsmejudith 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to deal with incorrect statements?

I completely understand the desire not to let incorrect statements stand, but this way of dealing with the problem reads awkwardly. I'm going to ask for advice on how best to handle it. Itsmejudith 20:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile if anyone can show parallels in other articles (preferably GA, FA) then that would be great. Itsmejudith 20:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know the best way to deal with it either, obviously. At the same time, I think my insertion of "incorrect" was accurate, while the one that came later (here) was, well, in a word, incorrect, which is why I reverted it, explaining my reversion to the editor who made it on his talk page. Cheers, Tomertalk 04:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the POV template

Everything in the article seems sourced, and I was considering removing the tag. However, the tag was originally placed to indicate that the article focussed too heavily on antisemitism which is presumably a small fraction of his views and not those he is notable for in India. (Presumably anti-Brahminism is more important.) Given that, I'm leaving it on for now, but adding Template:Globalize which I think is what is actually needed. Relata refero (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. There is one reference to the Dalit Voice website that does not link to any particular article and is thus pointless. The references to the publication are also quite old. The two from the early 1990s are, I think, those cited by Leon Poliakov in the last volume of his history of antisemitism. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)