Talk:Hindutva

The Venn diagram of Hindutva and classical fascism

"India's Uprising: The world’s largest democracy, united as never before" by Christopher Caldwell at https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/indias-uprising raises points against the general charge of "fascism" this entry makes. The nuances can't be covered here, but to raise some questions.

1.“When a demagogue like Modi takes a swipe at the likes of [Nobel-winning Harvard economist] Amartya Sen with a motto like ‘hard work is better than Harvard,’ knowing anglophones might snigger but it resonates amongst people who have been at the receiving end of this privileged knowingness forever.”

The article makes a strong case that Hindutva under Modi has had a far higher benefit/cost ratio than German fascism of the 1930s in terms of including more of the electorate than ever before in the day-to-day task of governance.

2. "Although the BJP’s Hindu ideology is not necessarily radical, the voters’ democratic mood can be very radical indeed. That the BJP is in power in the first place means that the old “managed” democracy of the Congress party system has been replaced with a more freewheeling variant—a more democratic democracy, if you will, a democracy that answers not to “values” but to the society as it actually exists."

In society as it actually exists, we ask things of each other, be it attention, taxes, or participation in an economic system. (For example, homelessness results on the part of those who resist, refuse, or are ineligible for that economic participation.) And it raises the question of what we have a right to ask of each other. Hindutva as a cultural idea addresses some of these issues. Should we conflate this with fascism? I think not.

3. "The problem of respecting the decisions of majorities while defending the rights of minorities is an anthropological one, not a moral one. We like to pretend that, when it comes to balancing majority and minority interests, there is a knowable “right thing to do.” Often there isn’t. We also like to pretend that protecting minorities always means protecting them against abuse and persecution by majorities. Sometimes it does. But just as often it means claiming prerogatives for minorities against the innocent preferences of democratic majorities. When progressive change is about protecting minorities from majorities, it can become not just undemocratic but anti-democratic. It may be for the people, but it will not be of the people or by the people. Eventually it draws the people directly into the political fight, to unpredictable effect."

This ends my comments on this article. There are many who understand Hindutva and Indian history better than I do and perhaps my concerns are invalid.

Nonetheless, I appeal for a less-strident conflation of Hindutva and fascism than given in this article, which rests often on appeal to authority rather than the kind of analysis made by Christopher Caldwell. Drienstra (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM - you appear to mistakenly assume that this talk page is a forum for posting personal thoughts about such a source and engage in musings about society as it actually exists etc. Caldwell's article mentions fascism exactly once, and Hindutva only in two paragraphs (in a different section). So it seems that these observations about the Venn diagram of Hindutva and classical fascism are your own original research.

To highlight just one example: The article makes a strong case that Hindutva under Modi has had a far higher benefit/cost ratio than German fascism of the 1930s in terms of including more of the electorate than ever before in the day-to-day task of governance. - the article doesn't mention Germany, Hitler or Nazism at all, so it looks like this is yourself making this case instead. We could go on to examine your weird assumption that fascism can be measured in the share of the electorate that is included "in the day-to-day task of governance" (you are quite clearly unaware of the mass movement aspects of fascism, which are often included in the very definition of the term, or e.g. of the Nazi regime's extensive "inclusion" of average citizens in its "governance", see e.g. blockwart). But fortunately Wikipedia's no original research policy alleviates the community of the need to spend time debunking amateur historians' personal theories.

this article, which rests often on appeal to authority rather than the kind of analysis made by Christopher Caldwell - this looks like a criticism of both Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which says that articles must proportionately represent all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources [you might call it "authorities] on a topic, and of the aforementioned "no original research" policy against editors coming up with the kind of analysis done by scholars or journalists themselves and add it to Wikipedia articles. Of course, if Christopher Caldwell has provided such an analysis himself, that would be a different discussion - but as mentioned above, he quite clearly hasn't in this article.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Who keeps check on the Neutral policy of Wikipedia? 80.32.121.169 (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is meant for specific discussions about improving the article Hindutva (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). So it is not the best place to ask general questions about how Wikipedia works or what its policies are. Try at Wikipedia:Teahouse instead, or see if you can find answers in documentation pages like this one (and various others linked there). Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Rquest for deletion or reviewing of certain articles

I would be really thankfull if you give a second view of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of intorduction. These are the typicall western@ media's stereotypical lines and would really promote of the rewritting of the article by an INDIAN or atleast of INDIAN ORIGIN.
Thank you
Regards
Yamantakks (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

To @Daxserver,

Dear I also wrote the same on your talk page and i am writting here but i want to add something, there may be many people on wikipedia and yes they have different views but on the basis of such an abstract fact you can't justify for the 2^nd Paragraph as it misleads the reader by first telling extrememly megative things about it and saying that some believe that. I would be really happy if you unrevertef my changes. Yamantakks (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes "megative things" are just simple matters of fact. Wikipedia appeals to general consensus. You might feel differently, but Wikipedia is not an ideological battleground. It's an encyclopedia. The article about Hindutva is unkind because, to quote Dan Olson, "the facts are just, prima facia, unkind". Hindutva is a fascist ideology, which means it supports things the average world citizen would likely find upsetting. Documenting these things as they are - abhorrent - is not ideological per se, it's standard procedure post World War II. Racial mob violence and concepts of ethnic purity/homeland are things anyone with knowledge of political history can recognize as part of a violent, far-right ideology.

There's precious little space for debate when we are dealing with definitions as given.

Best regards,

Magpiesmeanstoeuphoria (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Needs work to make it less partisan

This article is partisan because of selective sourcing, despite the NPOV policy. For example, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, the leading ideologue of modern Hindutva and the inspiration for Modi, is nowhere mentioned. Statements by current RSS leadership that expand Hindutva to include anyone living in India are ignored. Secondary sources related to these statements are available, but ignored. All relevant sides must be presented to justify the NPOV label.

A section called "dissenting views" or "rebuttals to fascism", or similar wording should be added, unless the partisanship is deliberate. I can submit draft content if this is approved. Sooku (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sooku There are multiple sources given in the article. Just because you do not like them, doesn't mean it's partisanal in nature. Which sources or opinions provided here are "partisanal" to you?

NPOV is not violated just because undue weight is not given to Hindutva politician's views. It's well established procedure to not include overtly biased opinions in WP articles, especially in the main sections.

I do believe that such dissenting views should be included under a separate subheading. You should submit a draft on it if you want to. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by summarising WP:SECONDARY sources, scholarly sources when available. The OP is citing WP:NPOV, which is a policy, but they do not seem to have actually read the policy.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

There is Systemic bias in Wikipedia, especially Western (Global North) and Left-Liberal bias. A prima facie investigation on the authors of the secondary and primary sources in this article confirms such biases, especially the western bias. @Sooku may have misinterpretated such biases with the non-applicability of the NPOV policy, which in itself is mostly followed but a systemic study will show the policy itself favors the biases involved just like most other policies. This contention shouldn't be ignored nor their views be dismissed based on personal assumptions about the user.

Hindutva is a very India based topic and it's sad to see that Indian based secondary or primary sources are not present in an adequate quantity. Hopefully the situation will improve. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Keep The redirect as well

Hindutva should be kept redirected to Hindutva Politics, if there’s any problem lets have discussion over it, I’m sure others will agree to it. EntrepreneurPedia (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so sure others will agree. I've reverted the move. The concise "Hindutva" is commonly used by reliable sources, and it generally refers unambiguously to this topic. The article does briefly discuss a historical alternate usage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, to the sources but title should definitely be changed because Hindutva refers to religion not just politics, and the whole article is about Hindtuva Politics I suggest there needs to be discussion. Because I came to this article via search on google so I’m felt quiet miss directed. Why not have discussion? EntrepreneurPedia (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

In the Tertiary sources sub-section of the Definition section, there is a sentence which reads, Modern politicians have attempted to play down the racial and anti-Muslim aspects of Hindutva, stressing the inclusiveness of the Indian identity; but the term has Fascist undertones." but the source used doesn't say anything like that, so please remove the sentence. 2406:7400:90:5E60:35D4:1004:3EF1:2E8D (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This whole article seems to have been written with an intention of maligning Hindutva (POV as Wikipedia says). Someone should go through the sources to see if the sources really say what is mentioned in this article.-2406:7400:90:5E60:8CA9:F986:45D3:ED5B (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I've confirmed that this exact quote appears in the source. Note that the neutral point of view policy requires specifically that the information in sources should be described neutrally. If most academic sources say that there are racist or violent elements to Hindutva, then there's not much Wikipedia can do about until the academic consensus changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)