Talk:Religious violence in India/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article has nothing to do with biography of a living person. Religious violence and communal conflicts are present in India. Since independence, India has experience several religious conflicts and riots with great loss of lives and property. Hence the need of this article.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi,

The article [Religious violence in India] seem to lack neutrality..

Please note that india has a tradition that gave birth to Buddha and Gandhi.. :)

Its true that violence of all type (not only religious) has happend in india (as is the case with any other country that has many contradictory lifestyles and beliefs.)

I am am Indian and living in india from my birth, the ground reallity of india is that almost all love peace and are tolerant and respectful to others' beliefs. :)

Please improve the article.

DhananSekhar (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


This article is a collection of facts and information. What is the reason behind claiming that this article lacks neutrality? And 'india has a tradition that gave birth to Buddha and Gandhi' is not a valid argument. It is fact that there are several riots took place in India. This article is a gathering of all those information.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)



I appreciate the effort to collect facts :)

Also I am not at all interested in agruments, rather I am interested to discuss facts, the whole wikipedia experiece, for me is the fun of learning..

But since you have specifically asked the relevance of Buddha and Gandhi, let me tell you why I put that..

The article satrts saying "In India, religious violence is prevalent" what does that mean? every part of india has a riot? - What I was trying to hint is that "Buddha" and "Gandhi" is appreciated in almost every corner of india.. where as violance happen at some places at some times.. that too most of the times it seems some people create it intentionally..

Regarding your question What is the reason behind claiming that this article lacks neutrality? , the first impressin the article gives is that religeous violence happen in every corner of india.. it is not true, and it draws a bad image of India.

It may just be the way your presented facts, so please consider re-writing it.. :) DhananSekhar (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Again I am telling that there is no relation between Buddha, Gandhi and this article. Can you prove that 'Buddha and Gandhi is appreciated in almost every corner of india..'? Since independence many riots have occured in India eg.:

  • 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots
  • Bombay Riots
  • 2002 Gujarat violence and many lesser incidents.

Why this facts should be noted that these conflicts claimed many lives, property loss, caused huge upheaval in international level. Regarding the sentence 'In India, religious violence is prevalent' such number of conflicts and associated damage which India experienced is not much low. Wikipedia is not a place to draw a good or bad image of a country. It is a place to gather true information and facts.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


I accept the facts.. but cannot accept the way you present it.

Violance is a part of human nature, we control it within ourselves so that we can lead a social life.. , there has been immense number of non-religious violance than the religious riots.. when you have a real big mass of human population, violance in some form or ather will happen (its more related to human nature than religion), when you present it this way, it seems that religion is a curse on india.. :( .. I cannot agree with that.

Anyway, good luck for your effort to add articles in india project. Please think about re-writing the article :) DhananSekhar (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


In which way the facts can be presented? The facts and information are written in a order with references. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi to all,

Wiki is surely meant for providing facts and relevant information. However let me re-iterate that there is no scope of personal commentaries as per Wiki policy guidelines for providing information. Any information provided without proper citation will be deleted/challenged. There is a crusade in wiki against providing misleading information or falsification.

Religious violence in India can exist as a topic and can source or list all the violence that has happened since Independance. Any religious violence reference before Independance will be DELETED or MERCILESSLY CHALLENGED since before 1947, 15th August India as a sovereign state never existed.

Thanks and Regards,

AB (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Necessary changes have been done to present NPOV for this article. This document can now be removed from NVOP debate.

1. Commentaries by previous authors removed and will be challenged again if included.

2. More facts added to Mumbai and anti-sikh riots

AB (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

History of relegious violence begins when?

Friends I am not against the subject of the article but it will need lot of efforts from editors with NPOV. Any way what I do not agree is relegious violence did begin post indipendance as written in intro para.We need to mention in intro para that as a culture Indians believe in Relegious plurality and tolerance towards each others faith.and while violence always gets vast media publicity the violence is usualy limited within specific geographic areas and within specific communities

History of relegious intolerance in Indian sub contintinent, I heard that Shaivites and Viashnavites were the real first to have relegious anemosity among them selves.

We need to have separate para about origins and resons behind relegious violence and ways adopted by governement machinery to limit the violence

Besides who should have right to be first in any public relegious ceremoney and procession has been many times a point and reson of relegious anemosity in Indian Subcontinent.

Rumours lead to lot of violence.


Mahitgar (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edit

In the edit by IP address 125.16.17.151.

  • There is no citation is given supporting the fact that 'The Hindus have traditionally been persecuted by the Muslim rulers as well as the Christian rulers (as during the Goa Inquisition).'
  • The citation used for 'The National Liberation Front of Tripura, described as the "Christian Al-Qaeda"' seems not to be a reliable source. The text in the citation is written by an anonymous editor and it seems to be a blog.
  • The other citations seems not to be neutral.

Hence I am deleting the uncited texts. These can be readded if enough and reliable source is given. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Otolemur crassicaudatusm, it is very clear that your aim is to write a dirty propagandist article by completely removing any mentions of Christian and Muslim violence against the Hindus, Buddhists and other Indian religions. Your only objective seems to be projecting Hindus as uncivilized barbarians and spreading the lie that the religious bigotry and intolerance is limited to Hindus.. You wrote an entire article on Religious violence in India, and didn't even mention things like Wandhama massacre and the 2000 Amarnath pilgrimage massacre. And when I added the truth, you simply removed my additions.
The sources do not become "not neutral" because fanatic Christians do not agree with them. You could have also used {{citation needed}} or {{refimprove}}, but your intention seems to be whitewashing Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism, so you pruned the whole section about violence against Hindus.
You won't consider truth sites like crusadewatch.org, burningcross.net and christianaggression.org as reliable sources, so I've added published books and news articles as sources. These sources are compliant with the Wikipedia guidelines, and include books by secular Christian authors such as Edna Fernandes and secular Muslim authors such as Mukhtar Ahmad. Wikipedia should not be used as a playground for propagandists, whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian. Your desperate attempts to cover up Christian and Muslim atrocities will not be tolerated. 125.16.17.151 (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you even read the articles Religious violence and Terrorism before posting the links? Religious terrorism is a form of collective religious violence. 125.16.17.151 07:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

This article is too limited in focus. I suggest the editors work on this article in the sandbox before putting it out in the mainspace. The article is clearly biased, as it only mentions Hindu violence against other religious groups. You do realize that the violence occurs on both sides? This article has potential, of course, but I think it's best to edit this in the sandbox until it is complete. This article is going to draw attacks from other editors who feel the clear bias in the article. Also, please use a spellchecker when editing. There are dozens of spelling mistakes. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


I agree. Spelling checks were done. Request to Editors please use spell checker at least before you put them into main space. However let me assert that FOR EVERY VIOLENCE ---> DO MENTION the background as to why that violence happened. I am doign that so that people reading the article dont get mislead.

AB (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge in of Anti-Christian violence in India

Support

  1. Support - both are short articles and the merge in enables the subsidiary material to be read in context as well as easing maintenance problems. BlueValour (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - This info is copied onto four articles.Bakaman 02:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - There isn't enough information to warrant a seperate article. For particular notable incidents, articles can be created and a simple wikilink should do. Darrowen (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - Merger makes sense. Shyamsunder 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Actioned - following agreement to the merge. BlueValour (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

User:Jahilia has added NPOV tag in this article. The article aimed giving information regarding main religious clashes. Each paragraph is properly cited also. I don’t think this lacks NPOV. Is it inappropriately added? The user earlier placed ‘articleissues’ tag. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. There is no NPOV dispute in the article. All the information given here are properly cited. The tag was inappropriate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to move. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 10:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Religious violence in India → Communal violence in India — I suggest a move to Communal violence in India, which is a more accurate descriptions. Many of these conflicts are not really religious in character, but clashes between communities. Religious/ethnic/caste lines often intersect, and many communal conflicts are have both religious and other aspects. --Soman (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - "communalism" and "communal violence" are indeed more common terms than "religious violence" in the Indian context, even when religion is a motivating cause of violence.--Conjoiner (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - as per my views below. Darrowen (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In my opinion, the current title is ok as it is an idiom that covers all phenomena where all forms of religious subjects or objects of individual or collective violent behavior. Please note that ‘religion’ is the basic source of all these violence. --Avinesh Jose  T  07:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - because ‘religion’ is the basic source of violence. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support not because it's primarily religious or not but because "communal violence" is the term usually used in the context of India. This might even border on an WP:ENGVAR issue (see below). — AjaxSmack 04:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

It's an interesting proposal, but I'm not convinced yet. The communities involved are divided along religious lines. Westerners, particularly those from protestant backgrounds, tend to assume that a religion is simply a system of belief.

(Even the introduction to our current and generally excellent article on religion reflects this approach: A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people. It does mention practices and group, but are practices really held?)

In other contexts, religion can be primarily about practices rather than belief, and/or primarily about culture. This appears to be one of those contexts. Andrewa (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the article by moving it to communal violence could actually allow the opening of other avenues of discussion. Such as caste related violence. Also, would there be merit to start a seperate article for the Indian subcontinent prior to independence. This would not include wars but would include pogroms and ethnic cleansing as the subcontinent has sometimes experienced. Darrowen (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is good in its present title because the motive behind violence is religious. And caste related violence should not be discussed here as there is another article on this issue. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
When you say religious violence you normally mean one religious community attacking another. However, the sikh riots do not really classify in that sense as it was more Congress v Sikhs. Many Hindus protected Sikhs and the Hindu nationalist parties asked their followers to hide their Sikh friends. Thus it doesn't really fall into the religious violence category. Darrowen (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. But one thing, such things not happened in that particular violence, but happens in other riots also where Hindus save Muslims, Muslims save Hindus. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are completely right. But those that took to the streets and became murderers were fuelled by their desire to revenge their beloved Congress/Indira Gandhi as opposed to avenge Hindus or protect Hinduism. Religious violence in the subcontinent is interesting because a lot of the time the violence does not actually have religious motivations (compared to say the fighting in Israel/Palestine and the Crusades) but has more nationalist/ethnic motivations because the religions centre themselves in different areas of India. Darrowen (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Caste and religion do coincide; caste is inseparable from religious conflicts in India. Conversion to Christianity or Buddhism by lower castes and Dalits is their attempt to escape casteism. Some Hindu nationalists are reacting against this by attempting to terrorise the converted in order to re-establish the social hierarchy.--Conjoiner (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For caste, there is already a separate article and should not be mentioned here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The claim isn't that it should be mentioned here, rather it should be moved to a place where it can be mentioned together with these incidents. Otherwise I am tempted to remove the Anti-Sikh riots. Also the article mentions violence against Hindus only in passing while it goes to great details to count the exact number of attacks against Christians. Why? Also why remove the link to Persecution of Hindus? Darrowen (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The details, which could be deemed unnecessay have been removed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

ENGVAR issues

The above discussion is interesting but might not be fully relevant. An important point is that, in the context of India and by Indians, the term "communal" is used to describe the scope of this article. D.E. Smith (in India as a secular state cited in Gerald James Larson India's agony over religion) says "'Communalism' is the term used in India to describe the political functioning of individuals or groups for the selfish interests of particular religious communities or castes." [my emphasis] To this is tied the words "communal" and "communalist." It seems that the style manual's WP:ENGVAR guideline that "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." might apply here regardless of whether communal is technically correct to English or American ears. — AjaxSmack 04:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people may use the term "communal". That does not mean that Religious violence must be called communal violence. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
More than "some" people use "communal violence." No it doesn't mean "religious violence must be called communal violence" but it is more appropriate in this context. — AjaxSmack 18:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Religious violence is not a wrong term. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
bbc used it as 'Religious violence' in SriLanka. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they used it in the context of Sri Lanka. But Sri Lanka hasn't been part of India since ... well, come to think of it, it's never been a part of India. — AjaxSmack 18:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not particularly bothered if the title stays as it is, but I agree that "communal violence" is more appropriate since it is the way most Indian perceive violence between or towards people of certain religious faiths and also involves inter-caste violence, such as the persecution of Dalits, which is bound up with the violent backlash against conversion to Christianity. There are also political and social dimensions that are better discussed in the context of communalism rather than religion.--Conjoiner (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Guardian also used it as religious (India). There are nearly 10,000 google hits as Religious violence in India. There is nothing wrong in using the title 'Religious'. Proposed title (Communal) also may be appropriate. But the existing title is ok.--Avinesh Jose  T  04:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reportage

I have been removing unnecessary reportage on each and every act of anti-Christian violence and cleaning up the section. This is not a human rights report or a piece of journalism, but an encyclopaedic entry.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Christian violence

According to Human Rights Watch, there is large-scale violence being perpetrated by Hindu Nationalists against Christians. The increase in anti-Christian violence in India bears a direct relationship to the ascendancy of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Incidents of violence against Christians have occurred in many parts of India. It is especially prevalent in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and New Delhi. From 1964 to 1996, 38 incidents of violence against Christians were reported. In 1997, 24 such incidents were reported. Since 1998, Christians in India faced a wave of violence. The acts of violence include arson of churches, distribution of threatening literature, burning of Bibles, forcible conversion of Christians, destruction of Christian schools, colleges, and cemeteries. In 1997 in Gujarat 22 churches were burnt or destroyed, and another 16 damaged. On 5 November 1999, 26 students of St. Joseph’s Evening College in Bangalore were attacked by VHP activists for converting Hindus to Christianity. Jamuna Bhen, an agricultural laborer in Dang district in Gujarat told Human Rights Watch:


In a well-publicised case Graham Staines, an Australian missionary, was burnt to death while he was sleeping with his two sons Timothy (aged 9) and Philip (aged 7) in his station wagon at Manoharpur village in Keonjhar district in Orissa in January 1999. In 2003, the Hindu activist Dara Singh was convicted of leading the gang responsible.

In June 2000, four churches around India were bombed. In Andhra Pradesh, church graves were desecrated. A church in Maharashtra was ransacked. In its annual human rights reports for 1999, the US State Department criticised India for "increasing societal violence against Christians. The report on anti-Christian violence listed over 90 incidents of anti-Christian violence, ranging from damage of religious property to violence against Christians pilgrims. Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal, and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are the most responsible Hindu organizations for violence against Christians. Sangh Parivar and local media were involved in promoting anti-Christian propaganda in Gujrat.

In 2007, Christians were attacked in Kandhamal, Orissa. Nearly twelve churches were targeted in the attack by Hindu activists. Twenty people were arrested following the attacks on churches.

Discuss in which texts you have objection and why. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire section needs rewriting as it lacks any structure. I reordered it so that the structure was (a) The rise in anti-Christian violence since the late 1990s, (b) what the violence entails, (c) a couple of the most notable examples and (d) international reaction. It is enough for Human Rights Watch to state the nature of the violence without us having to go into every detail, including non-notable examples and eye-witness accounts. I am just trying to bring clarity to the section by making it more structured and concise.--Conjoiner (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The US report is relevant I have restructured it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

All information can be called irrelevant are removed, US report and the first paragrapg are corrected. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's good. It would be good to include any other human rights reports by INGOs and official bodies (as opposed to eye-witness accounts reported in the media), eg Amnesty, UNHRC, European Commission, etc.--Conjoiner (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

Terrorism is a type of religious violence. Why is it not mentioned here. I would think at least a heading with the title terrorism which has a bit of info on some of the incidents and then a main article link to Terrorism in India would be good. Darrowen (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Some forms of terrorism are considered religious violence. Not all. If there's some religiously-based incidents of terrorism, then we should definitely add it to the article. However, you need to be sure that these incidents of terrorism are really religious-based. For example, 29 October 2005 Delhi bombings might be construed as either political-based or religious-based terrorism. We would violate WP:NOR, if we were to put those bombings in this article, since the exact cause has yet to be determined. The 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya can be covered in this article, as it's clearly religious-based terrorism. We could include the 2006 Varanasi bombings, but it would have be in a separate section entitled "Possible religiously-motivated violence". The perpetrators have yet to be identified, and the fact that the incident occurred in a Hindu holy city does not guarantee that it was an attack based on religion. Also worth mentioning are the 1998 Coimbatore bombings and 18 May 2007 Mecca Masjid bombing. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
How about the 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings, carried out by LET and SIMI?? Darrowen (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

I think it's a case of undue weight when incidents of vandalism, arson and robbery on Christian churches and dwellings are being given such detail while incidents in which dozens of Hindus were massacred are mentioned in passing and in many cases not mentioned at all. The article makes it seem like Anti-Christian violence is rising exponentially and the Christians in India are always facing threats and attacks. Darrowen (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Becuase the cause of the vandalism, arson and robbery in Churches in anti-Christian. Vandalism, arson and robbery in Churches is the form of anti-Christian violence. The anti-Christian violence take its expression in these way.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reduced the undue weight given to what are relatively minor acts. But clearly there is an issue and a couple of high profile cases have been covered here as well as reports by the US State Department and Human Rights Watch. Feel free to expand the section on anti-Hindu violence.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Un encyclopedic and unbalanced

I am quite dissatisfied with this article as a whole, this article is without any consensus and very biased.There are always some articles which remain under influence of biased people.Such people even remove various notices put on the page without gathering consensus at the talk page.

Article is very much dependant on one sided newspaper articles which are usualy biased with reporters own ideas.Besides this article is made in such a way as of an advertisement to get new fundamentalist rather than furtering purpose of harmoney.

  • Article does not cover Complete history of religious violence
  • Is not throughly researched and not cronologicaly ordered does not cover preindipendance events.
  • Article ignores the fact that usualy India has proved as a plural society
  • Article does not include instances of inter-sect wise violence happening within the relegious communities
  • Article does not site any scholorly studies from any Indian university on this subject and has become very one sided and does not site reasons of begining of flareups and measures adopted by communities and governemt in avoiding communal flareups.

Pretty unsatisfactory !

Mahitgar (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


  • "Article is very much dependant on one sided newspaper articles which are usualy biased with reporters own ideas" wikipedia does not tell to analyse reliable source, just use reliable source. So it is not our job to analyse the reporters.
  • Agree that the article do not provide history of religious violence. I will sugggest you to provide it in the article.
  • "Article does not site any scholorly studies" agrre, so I suggest you to provide it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to further harmony, but to provide articles that are meant to be encyclopaedic. I agree with much of what you are saying, particularly the need for reference to scholarly peer-reviewed articles. There is far too much reportage and not enough detail on the debates surrounding religious violence in India. As for violence within religious communities (eg Sunni versus Shia, or caste issues that have a religious dimension), I agree with you and there is a proposal to change the name of the title to "communal violence in India" or perhaps to merge it with Communalism (South Asia). Please join in the debate [1]. I also agree that history is very important, not least the violence that followed partition which gets not mention here. But for the article to improve, you have to participate.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good. Write the history section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think it would have been best to have completed this article in the userspace before moving it to the mainspace. It's unfortunate that viewers have read an article that is not incomplete and has POV concerns. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Morichjhanpi

I have added the Morichjhanpi incident. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How, how, does this qualify as either religious or communal violence? --Soman (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I had added it in line because it was present in Persecution of Hindus. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the presence of such text in another article does not qualify it for inclusion in this article. That's not how Wikipedia works, since the other article may also have problems. This is evidently not religious violence. Its inclusion is simply POV-pushing.--Conjoiner (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure of it. If you think it is not right, you can delete it. According to your argument, inclusion of this article in Persecution of Hindus is also incorrect. So try to identify the editor who first input this incident in Persecution of Hindus. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Soman has already removed that section from the Persecution of Hindus article.--Conjoiner (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See this [2]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It was User:Rumpelstiltskin223 who first introduced the texts. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that this is the sock puppet of a banned user, I don't think we need overly worried about it being reinserted into the Persecution of Hindus article.--Conjoiner (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I fear in wikipedia there may be still some socks of User:Hkelkar with pro-Hindutva POV-pushing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be correct, but it is impossible to tell. We just have to ensure that everything is well-sourced and NPOV.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

History section

I have started the "History" section. It need to be expanded. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work.--Conjoiner (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Otolemur crassicaudatus History of communal violance in India needs further research with balanced approach .
I was just searching google scholor and came across quite a few books but one of them . which makes me suggest you to read and exmine review of the book Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life by Hindus and Muslims in India

Thanks Mahitgar (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph in Anti-Hindu violence section

"In 2001, there were 826 reported terrorist attacks in Tripura against non-converted Hindus, in which 405 people lost their lives and 481 kidnappings were made by the NLFT and related organizations such as the Christian All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTP) [3]. In August 2003, police arrested the secretary of a Baptist Christian Missionary church in North Tripura District who was in possession of five kg of potassium, one kg sulphur, few gelatin sticks and 45 gm of high explosive materials [4]. The Pope, in his recent visit to India, asking for a harvest of Asian souls in the 3rd millenium. [5]"

I think the last two sentences are unencyclopedic.

  • "In August 2003, police arrested the secretary of a Baptist Christian Missionary church in North Tripura District who was in possession of five kg of potassium, one kg sulphur, few gelatin sticks and 45 gm of high explosive materials" this is an incident, and information like "five kg of potassium, one kg sulphur, few gelatin sticks and 45 gm of high explosive materials" are not deserve in this article to meet encyclopedic standard. The incident can be mentioned, but not the quantity of sulphur, gelatin sticks etc.
  • The last sentence "The Pope, in his recent visit to India, asking for a harvest of Asian souls in the 3rd millenium" do not show that this speech by pope led increase in anti-Hindu violence. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you on both points. The first one need only be briefly mentioned in a footnote, without the whole issue of the quality of explosive, and unless the Pope has been accused of inciting anti-Hindu violence, this point should not be mentioned at all.--Conjoiner (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Altho I added it I agree as well. I will look to expand the section, particularly the parts on Kashmir as that has been actual religiously motivated cleansing of a population. Darrowen (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits

"In the Kashmir region, many Kashmiri Pandits have been killed by Islamist militants in incidents such as the Wandhama massacre and the 2000 Amarnath pilgrimage massacre. The incidents of massacring and forced eviction have been termed ethnic cleansing by some observers. In September 1989, a BJP national executive and a Kashmiri high court judge, both Hindu, were murdered. Later in the month, 80-year old poet Pandit Sarwanand Premi was kidnapped, tortured, had his eyes gouged out and then was killed. Approximately 300 Hindus were killed between September 1989 to 1990 in numerous incidents. In early 1990, local Urdu newspapers called upon Kashmiris to wage jihad against India and ordered the expulsion of all Hindus choosing to remain in Kashmir. In the following days masked men ran in the streets with Kalashnikovs shooting to kill Hindus who would not leave. Further bomb blasts and massacres claimed more lives. Notices were placed on the houses of all Hindus, many of whom had a family history in the region of over 5000 years, telling them to leave within 24 hours or die.

Since March 1990, estimates of between 250,000 to 300,000 pandits have migrated outside Kashmir due to persecution by Islamic fundamentalists in the largest case of ethnic cleansing since the partition of India. Most Pandits are now forced to live in refugee camps set up in Delhi."

I think there are some problems with some sentences .

  • First, "In September 1989, a BJP national executive and a Kashmiri high court judge, both Hindu, were murdered" this is an incident.
  • Second, " Later in the month, 80-year old poet Pandit Sarwanand Premi was kidnapped, tortured, had his eyes gouged out and then was killed" this is also an incident and texts like "his eyes gouged out" do not meet encyclopedic standard.

This two incidents should be deleted. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It will also be good to mention the name of the terrorist organisations. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this should not be a list of incidents. Moreover, the fact that a judge and a BJP leader were Hindu does not necessarily mean they were killed because they were Hindu. There are a lot of killings that are linked to crime or political rivalries, without any religious dimension. It is not up to us to determine whether the killings constitute religious violence.--Conjoiner (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have concised the section by deleting irrelevant information. The present version is:

"In the Kashmir region, approximately 300 Kashmiri Pandits were killed between September 1989 to 1990 in numerous incidents. In early 1990, local Urdu newspapers Aftab and Al Safa called upon Kashmiris to wage jihad against India and ordered the expulsion of all Hindus choosing to remain in Kashmir. In the following days masked men ran in the streets with AK-47 shooting to kill Hindus who would not leave. All Hindus were asked to leave within 24 hours or die.

Since March 1990, estimates of between 250,000 to 300,000 pandits have migrated outside Kashmir due to persecution by Islamic fundamentalists in the largest case of ethnic cleansing since the partition of India.

Many Kashmiri Pandits have been killed by Islamist militants in incidents such as the Wandhama massacre and the 2000 Amarnath pilgrimage massacre. The incidents of massacring and forced eviction have been termed ethnic cleansing by some observers."

The present version is chronologically ordered. Tell if any objection. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

NRI contribution in anti-Christian violence

A reference is given that shows NRI contribution in anti-Christian violence in India[6]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Some info should be mentioned from this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Another reference on anti-Christian violence[7]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of history section

The section was meant to talk about the origins of religious violence in pre-independent India, not to spew forth all of one's qualms about Hindu nationalist politics. It is trying to paint a picture that only the Hindu nationalists are seperating India from its ambition of secularism. Why insert talk about bans on religious conversion and about Hindutva having a major role in politics. The article is (was) written to propose that the UPA wants secularism but somehow these Hindu fanatics keep creeping into parliament. Forgetting that most recent major polls in states show BJP victories and the BJP led the country for 5 years. But in any case, what does that have to do with violence?? It's just unnecessary political rhetoric added to the history section. Darrowen (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of "History" section

  • The "History" section is not meant for religious violence in pre-independent India, "History" means both pre-independence and post-independence. The section was devided in three paragraphs -one depicting "ancient India", second depicting "modern India i.e. Birtish rule and pre-Independence events" and third depicting "Recent history i.e. "post-Independence event".
  • Religious biogotry is a cause behind religious violence, so the mention of the "anti-conversion" laws is necessary, because these laws reinforce the dominance of Hindu majority.
  • Bal Thackrey comment is absolutely relevant with his call to form Hindu suicide squad.
  • It is fact that many governments do not prosecute those who attack religious minority, it is an important fact on religious violence.
  • "Hindutva" is a major reason behind religious biogotry, and resulting religious violence. And it plays a major role in government policies. It need to be mentioned. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
But it's original research when you find a link which says that the RSS wants to convert all inhabitants to Hindu culture and then put that there and say that it means that the RSS promotes religious violence. Bal Thackrey's comment is isolated, we can't begin to fill up this article with all the inflamatory comments made in Indian politics. You also add that Hindutva has some influence in government policies, how does that relate to violence? You may say that governments do not prosecture those who attack a religious minority, but by banning conversion how are they causing religious violence? You write that the ban on conversion is there to preserve the Hindu majority, does that cause religious violence? Darrowen (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You are right that there is a confusion between policy that is arguably repressive or marginalising minority communities and actual violence. I think this underscores the fundamental problems with this article and why, instead, it should deal more broadly with communalism, which sometimes but not always leads to religious violence.--Conjoiner (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please be aware of edit warring. If it goes like this, may be protected soon. Check WP:PROT and WP:3RR. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religious_violence_in_India/Archive_1&oldid=1137120596"