Talk:Persecution of Hindus

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.gurmatveechar.com/books/English_Books/A.Brief.History.of.the.Indian.People.by.Sir.William.Wilson.Hunter.(GurmatVeechar.com).pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content from Aurangzeb

Hello, The section Aurangzeb (1658–1707) under Mughal says "However, he also built many temples", I think such things are irrelevant and justifies his cruelty. There is much proof of him breaking down the temples, this neutralize and justifies the entire sentence. We are talking about the persecution done by Aurangzeb and not him doing us any good. This statement should be removed. Jenos450 (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Please explain why you removed the information on Aurangzeb that Jenos450 had added. Where will I find information on the policy that "Raj era sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia"? I would have replaced the information but I see that this is an area where discretionary sanctions apply, so we had better edit carefully. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not see this post and the discussion with Jenos450 moved to User talk:Jenos450#Raj_era_sources. See Vanamonde93's comment below and the discussion on the user talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Essentially, the guideline in question is WP:RS. Sources from the period of the British Raj in India are almost without exception authored by administrators, rather than scholars, or have no editorial oversight, or propagate scientific racism in some form, or were written with the interests of the administration in mind rather than historical accuracy, or were reliant on local sources of dubious merit. Avoiding such sources has been a long-standing practice in South Asian articles on Wikipedia. Jenos450 needs to find high-quality sources supporting the content they wish to add before they reinstate it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

On the original point, viz., the statement about building temples should be removed, I don't agree either. It is a single brief statement, included to provide balance. The record of Aurangzeb is mixed and the scholars have not reached a consensus on whether his actions represent relgious persecution or whether they were political battles of some sort. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Where it is said it is mixed? Please provide a source Kautilya3. Aurangzeb is notorious for his religious atrocities. I don't think a balance is necessary when we are talking about something pessimistic like the persecution faced by Hindus. If it was his page, I would have totally agreed with you. All the prosecutor has done something merciful, this would call for an effort to justify everything on this page. Jenos450 (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding to my point above, Aurangzeb did not share his forefather's virtues. He was a vigilant promoter of Islam, converted Hindus, and probably even despised them. He had wasted many Hindu temples, looted them, and razed those to the ground. A subtle change was made in his policy- though construction of new Hindu temples was completely banned; he said at some point in time that he would offer financial help to help preserve Hindu temples. A sudden change of heart? Not much. He opposed Hinduism and all signs of it, till his death. He declared the policy of helping temples financially as it was completely driven politically. You see its not persecution and irrelevant to the page, If it should be added, it should be only on his own page. “Hitler saved more Jews than he killed” Jenos450 (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jenos450: I agree with you that the sentence on building temples was awkward and out of place, but I think there is a better way to achieve the balance Kautilya3 is looking for, primarily by being more specific about what was actually done during Aurangzeb's reign and why. Take for instance the phrases "numerous campaigns of attacks against non-Muslims" and "destruction of numerous temples". I don't think the word "numerous" is ever appropriate in an encyclopedia, because... how many is it? It implies "too many to count" but in this case is really "some unknown number". We should instead have some kind of estimate. The "numerous temples" sentence cites an article by Richard Eaton (the link is dead so I'm linking to a different pdf I found) that lists exactly 5 temples desecrated at Aurangzeb's order. In a 2015 interview with Eaton he both downplays the number of temples presumed to have been demolished by Muslim rulers and also says it's certainly more than the 80 he was able to definitively account for. He says that more temples were desecrated in Aurangzeb's reign than others, but also explains this not through religious hostility, but through Aurangzeb's long and particularly rebellion-filled reign. He also says "it is hard to argue that he harboured any personal animus against non-Muslims". Despite all this, you are correct that Aurangzeb is notorious. I think the best path forward is to note that Aurangzeb has a legacy as a persecutor of Hindus, while also noting that there is some debate both about the extent of his persecution and about whether his motivations were primarily religious or political. That way it's not about balancing Aurangzeb's good/bad reputation, it's about balancing the known/unknown facts of the situation. Shmarrighan (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I just added my attempt at balancing this section out. I'm not entirely satisfied, but hopefully it's an improvement. Let me know what you think. Shmarrighan (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A separate article for "Violence against Hindus in India"

Starting this topic as the "Persecution of Hindus" deals with persecution in general. There have been separate riots specifically targeting Hindus in different parts of India post-independence. Therefore, "Violence against Hindus in India" should ideally qualify for a separate article. --Athosindia —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. All that info can be incorporated here.