Talk:Hindu nationalism

Hindutva

My main case, as the author and creator of this article project, for Hindu Nationalism's disctinction from Hindutva rests on three points:

(1) There are large numbers of Hindus in India who do not accept Hindutva as their political expression or idea of patriotism or nationalism. Yet these are Hindus, and impact the expression of Hindu society and India as a whole.

(2) Hindu nationalism is far more diverse than the just expanding the formulations of Savarkar, Syama Prasad Mookerjee and the RSS, VHP and the BJP. It is rooted in the ancient history of India, with the period of Islamic invasions and empires.

(3) Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel and Purushottam Das Tandon were not Hindutva adherents, but were with a different kind of Hindu pride. Why should they be crammed into Hindutva?

Jai Shree Rama,

Nirav Maurya—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama's Arrow (talk • contribs)

typical hindutva deception

The above apology for Hindutva is the kind of deception and whitewashing generally displayed by Hindutvavadis. Specially see the sign off with Jai Shri Ram 94.8.132.135 (talk) --- a POV if I ever saw one. Sooku (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Lots of people think Vivekananda promoted nationalism. E.g., http://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/spirituality/The-theory-of-nationalism-by-Swami-Vivekananda/2013/11/16/article1893824.ece -- Unknown user, 14 November 2014

Indeed, Vivekananda had unsurpassed moral and spiritual authority and every word of what he said was true. He single-handedly put Hinduism on the map of world religions. I am sure it did a lot to uplift the spirits of Indians and Hindus, and awakened "national" feelings in them. But that is not to say that he was a nationalist, least of all a "Hindu nationalist!"

I am sure the Hindu nationalists love him, mostly because they still suffer from the low self-esteem that the Hindus of the 19th century colonial India had. However, the Hindu nationalists haven't read even a single speech of Vivekananda, except for those pithy slogans that arrive in the RSS pamphlets. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of {main} template

Do not use more than five articles with the main template. --Stbalbach 17:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

@Stbalbach The history of the page says @Rama's Arrow has added this comment, along with the section above titled "Hindutva". Could you confirm? Special:PermaLink/31861555 — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Restore lead

Should we restore the third para of long-standing lead from Special:PermaLink/1041431641 ? — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure when and why that was removed, but it seems an entirely appropriate inclusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Trads

“Trads” (short for traditionalists) are a subset of Hindu nationalists who have borrowed memes and imagery from the Western alt-right, and who consider mainstream Hindu nationalist organizations such as the BJP to be too moderate and accommodating to non-Hindus. They have been described as an explicitly fascist subculture. The creators of the controversial Bulli Bai and Sulli Deals apps identified themselves as trads.

References

Special:Diff/1102484132 This was removed by Aman.kumar.goel with edit summary "Beyond irrelevant". As the source title says, this is about Hindu nationalists. As the page title says, this is relevant. where else are we going to cover this if not here? Venkat TL (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere. These online trolls who got one-off coverage (WP:NOTNEWS) never actually defined this movement. If scholarly sources (not throw-away news links) started to consider them to be vital part of Hindu nationalism then we can rethink. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Map of Undivided India.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: India in Global Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 14 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OjusG (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Tjp1234, Ia987.

— Assignment last updated by Adirrao (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST

@Kautilya3: Ok, come on then, I'm listening. What's the problem with this actually functional opening definition that you've removed. MOS:FIRST requires the first sentence to say what the subject is, in plain English. What we're looking for is a "Subject is XXX" sentence here, not an "... has been collectively referred to as the expression of social and political thought, based on ..." which has all the coherence of a badly worded press release. The next sentence is even worse "Native thought streams.." - it would be hard to define "native thought streams" let alone assert that it defines anything else - google that and you get redirected back to this page - that's how unhelpful, esoteric, rarefied and simply not plain English the language in this lead is. I added that the subject is "a form of religious nationalism among Hindu communities" (an actual explanation, in plain English), citing Religious Nationalism in a Global Age: The Case of Hindu Nationalism - that ones gives it to you right there in the title, and Religious Nationalism and Democratic Polity: The Indian Case. What's the problem? And how, on earth, could you look at my addition and think, yep, that's the problem, and the best way to improve this lead, which currently includes made-up phrases like "native thought streams", is to remove a well-sourced first effort at actually defining the subject, instead of working with it? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of authoritative scholars cited on the page don't call it religious nationalism. The page itself doesn't call it religious nationalism. You are just pushing your own POV, by hunting for sources that support that POV and trying to insert them into the lead. The lead summarises the article, not your own home-baked POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Hmm, I think your AGF is slipping a little there. Ok, you think it is POV (x3), and home-baked - ok ... how the are scholarly sources you removed 'home-baked' exactly? To me, it seems not only obvious, but basic common sense that it is a form of religious nationalism, much like the sky is blue. I would have hardly thought the concept even requires that much explanation, but I nevertheless went out of my way to find quality peer-reviewed sourcing. Are you calling the peer-reviewed sourcing POV, and if so, what's its bias? A tendency to describe social phenomena using accurate sociological terminology? What do you think the subject is if not a form of religious nationalism, and what peer-reviewed sources support the counter-proposition that it is not a form of religious nationalism? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Might I also recommend, chapter 1, page 1 of Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India, by Peter van der Veer, which is entitled "Religious nationalism" and goes on to describe, almost exclusively, Hindu nationalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

These are complex social phenomena for which different scholars might attach different interpretations. It is not at all like "sky is blue" (which is exactly what I mean by your home-baked interpretation). There are religious aspects to Hindu nationalism, but they are not the only ones. Van der Veer is studying "religious nationalism". So that is what he focuses on. (Moreover, his starting point is 1992, whereas this page goes back to the beginnings of Hindu nationalism in the 19th century). William Gould (270 citations on Google scholar) and Christophe Jaffrelot (1735 citations on Google scholar) are the authorative sources for Hindu nationalism. You can't insert stuff which violates what they say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but if sociology experts studying religious nationalism say that it is a form of it, who are experts not focused on religious nationalism to say otherwise? Sociology is what we look to for top-level ideological classifications. Gould doesn't really provide any one definition. He says the term is problematic, and, on page 7, that Congress attempted to broaden the meaning of "Hindu" to the secular, but that this notion of "Hindu nationalism" was very different to that of Savarkar and other Hindu ideologues, and that, despite this, Congress still leaned on religious symbolism and public religious rituals. Gould also says that he goes about his book intentionally utilizing a broader or looser concept of Hindu nationalism. None of this is explained in the current excerpt on the page. Jaffrelot's work, chapter 1, page 11 states: "Hindu nationalism derives from socio-religious movements...", page 13, "Hindu nationalism, as we shall see, largely reflects the Brahmanical view of the high caste reformers who shaped its ideology", who, page 14, "undertook to reform their society and its religious practices in order to adapt them to Western modernity while preserving the cored of Hindu tradition". None of this really counters the applicability of the terminology of religious nationalism here. At best, Jaffrelot suggest that Hindu nationalism is some sort of hybridized religious-ethnic nationalism that has incorporated territorial and other ethnic values. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Also waiting for your confirmation that "native thought streams" is meaningless verbiage and that the first sentence and lead do need better clarifying. It's all well and good criticizing, but how would you address the problems? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Native thought streams" is a perfectly reasonable way of describing what existed before Indian independence. There was no "Hindu identity" or a religion called "Hinduism" in the wider populace. It was gradually constructed and imposed on them, first by the British then by Indian politicians. If you asked my grandfather what his "religion" was, he would have replied that he didn't undrstand the question. "Native thought streams" were all he had. The "Muslims" had a "religion". He didn't. (See Wilfred Cantwell Smith for a thorough discussion of this, whose citation you seem to have removed this morning.)

So in the early 20th century, the politicans had the job of mobilisng a "nation" out of this populace, which they did by using religious and cultural symbols and defining an "Indian identity" based on those. The Indian Muslims didn't have these symbols. To them, "India" didn't mean anything. They belonged to a worldwide Muslim "ummah". So the only thing they could be mobilised on was something like the Khilafat movement.

Gould is saying that this "Hindu nationalism", which originated in Congress, wasn't exclusivist. It was perfectly in harmony with the idea of a secular state, because Hinduism itself didn't require any "Hindu state" (whatever that might mean). Some time after this, the Congress evolved the notion of "Indian nationalism", which is a straightforward territorial nationalism, meaning the nation belongs to all people living in the territory of India. I only see one use of "religious nationalism" in this entire book.

Jaffrelot, who is more focused on RSS-style Hindu nationalism, calls it "ethno-religious nationalism" and also relates it to European-style "ethnic nationalism". He doesn't call it "religious nationalism". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

As a Jaffrelot fan, does that mean you'd get behind ethno-religious nationalism? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Jaffrelot's characterisation probably holds good for the RSS-style Hindu nationalism (or "Hindutva"), but there are also other streams. This requires further study and thought. I can't say anything at the moment. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hindu nationalism is ...

This page does not currently have a proper first sentence that says what the subject is, per MOS:FIRST. The current first sentence is vague in the extreme, using the convoluted turn of phrase "... has been collectively referred to as ..." - so is it or isn't it? The statement leaves one none-the-wiser. What it needs to say is "Hindu nationalism is ... INSERT DEFINTION". Given the pushback against defining it in sociological terms, as religious nationalism, I would like to hear what editors think it should be defined as. At the risk of being too bold, I would suggest that the nationalism part is a given - leading one to ask, so, what type of nationalism? That is the question I put to the jury. For example, this source says: "Hindu nationalism, also known simply as Hindutva, refers to ethno-religious and nationalist political attitudes in India." Seems to have pros and cons, some good, some bad. Directly equating the subject and Hindutva seems problematic, but "ethno-religious and nationalist" sounds uncannily like religious nationalism, but then again, this is a less-than-stellar open access journal. Maybe we can do better. And that is precisely what the floor is open to now. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree the current opening sentence isn't fit for purpose. However, we can't equate Hindutva and Hindu nationalism: there are plenty of sources discussing Hindu nationalism as a broader phenomenon from the 1800s onward. Hindutva is of course the predominant form that exists today. I haven't the bandwidth to draft anything presently, but it's safe to assume it needs to describe it as a political ideology linking Hinduism to nationalistic struggle. I welcome any effort in this respect. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This really ought to be a hotter topic for this article. It is never acceptable to refer to a thing as if it isn't "a thing" in itself but rather "refers to a thing", even worse when it is "a thing that is referred to as [some other thing]". WP Ludicer (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Category & Template Removed

@Johnbod: One of your edits has been reverted by two users who are quite less experienced than you. Also, there isn't any proper explanation behind their move. I reverted both their edits. Thanks LinnéaBørresen (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The discrimination and Islamophobia tags are somewhat debatable and more of obviously dead ringers for Hindutva (though it remains debatable if these are even separate subjects or just different aspects of the same). But the category of Anti-Islam sentiment in general is a pretty straightforward one. Hindu nationalism is drenched with aspersions of dual loyality, e.g. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, 1998: "Mecca can continue to be holy for the Muslims but India should be holier than the holy for them. You can go to a mosque and offer namaz, you can keep the roza. We have no problem. But if you have to choose between Mecca or Islam and India you must choose India." Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hindu nationalism is largely historical. It happens to give special importance to Hindu culture and traditions but it does not mean it becomes anti-Islamic. Just like Muslim nationalism in South Asia is not "anti-Hindu". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Largely historical how? Seems pretty live and well. And Hindutva, it's prevailing nationalistic ideology, is positively drenched in Islamophobia, so how you think Hindu nationalism is not in any way connected, I do not know. Just look at like, oh, I don't know, any source on Hindu nationalism, or, for want of specifics: [1], [2], [3] This is not subtle stuff, and trying to wish it away is only a few short steps from plain denialism. Any form of nationalism centered around a faith tradition is intrinsically discriminatory to a certain degree, and for Hindu nationalism the prevailing focus of its nationalistic ire has always been on Muslims, India's largest religious minority. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::The fact of the matter is basic tenets of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism are hatred towards minority community which means some form discrimination. In my view both category & template must be added as this ideology is nothing but xenophobia & Islamophobic in nature. Moreover an entire article has been created on Hindutva terrorism. Fowler&fowler can give your view regarding this matter.--LinnéaBørresen (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hindutva is not same as Hindu nationalism, that's why we have two different articles for both. Capitals00 (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Well maybe, or maybe the two articles just artificially give the imaginings of two subjects more distinct than they actually are. The first sentence of Hindutva just calls it the "cultural justification of Hindu nationalism" - neither can really conceivably be imagined without the other. Hindu nationalism is in theory broader, because Congress has been at pains to outline some form of Hindu nationalism along more ideologically secular lines, but the genre of Hindu nationalism remains predominated by Hindutva, which is radically right-wing/borderline fascist. Prejudice is common to both, however. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

With this absurd sense, you should be adding same category ("Category:Anti-Islam sentiment...") to every single page about every Christian and Jewish priest because they are not pro-Islamic or neutral about all religions on a cursory look. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a page about individual people, this is a page about an ideology: one that has been relatively consistent in its polemics. Search through the mentions of Muslims on this page, and assess for yourself how many of the discussed interactions are in a positive light, and how many are quite the opposite. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

No you are not making any sense here. Your absurd logic can be easily applied on individual pages too. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe so, and for that reason we have stricter BLP policies. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Fwiw, I think that the categories are much more appropriate than the 2 templates. I appreciate that this article is much broader than Hindutva etc, but I think the categories are justified by much, but not all, of the things & people covered here. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

No they are not justified at all. With this category you are labeling every single person to be anti-Christian and anti-Muslim whoever has been a part of this ideology. See WP:CATDEF and refrain from this POV pushing. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that isn't what it means. It just means that they are some defining characteristics. It does not mean there is no plurality within the subject, or that, by any stretch of the imagination, every item on the page is referenced by them. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

These categories fail WP:CATDEF because they are irrelevant to this subject. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant how? As the lead states, Hindu nationalism is today championed by the BJP and RSS, which, together, represent one of the beating hearts of not just anti-Muslim/Islam, but brazen Islamophobia, in Asia these days - though it's a bit of a close call as to whether they or the Buddhist far right in Myanmar are the current epicenter of it. I've already given you one quote from the page itself. Here's another from Savarkar that also supports the anti-Christian sentiment category: "Their [Muslims' and Christians'] holy land is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and Godmen, ideas and heroes are not the children of this soil. Consequently, their names and their outlook smack of foreign origin. Their love is divided" Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That is about Hindutva which is "championed" by BJP and RSS. Not Hindu nationalism.

It was added here and I removed it before as distraction but a throw-away account with only 1 edit restored it.[4]

There was no consensus to add it or even any discussion. Noting that people like you are misrepresenting it even after being told many many times that Hindutva and Hindu nationalism are not same, I think it needs to be removed again. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The sentence "Today, Hindutva (meaning "Hinduness") is a dominant form of Hindu nationalist politics in India" was itself unsourced WP:OR. Now having it removed here, there is no confusion now over Hindu nationalism and Hindutva to any readers. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That material didn't really have it that wrong. Hindu nationalism and Hindutva are basically a borderline solar eclipse on a venn diagram. Distinct enough that they just about deserve to be discussed separately, but intricately intertwined nonetheless. Again, just read the first sentence of the page Hindutva, or any dictionary. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

What other forms of "Hindu nationalist politics in India" are there today? What's their claim to dominance? It doesn't even say "the dominant" btw. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The content is misleading for the lead as we have already seen above. Hindutva and Hindu nationalism are both different things. Consider finding rebutal to this source and don't edit war if you are really serious. Capitals00 (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

An editorial comment piece is a terrible point of reference for this. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It not marked as opinion piece and it far qualified than your own views that have no sources.

Also the above sock (LinnéaBørresen) and the person who added these categories and templates are both blocked as socks of each other. I suspect this person was also sock of this same sock-farm but it won't be possible to convict it right now unless they log in again. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of sources treat Hindu nationalism and Hindutva as synonymous. It is not clear that Wikipedia's setup at this time is a neutral reflection of reliable sources. Dedicated books on Hindu nationalism, [5], [6], detail the history of the RSS and BJP. These are Hindu nationalist organizations. Hindutva is not anything separate; it is plain and simply, in the words of Bhatt, p.4, the "distinctive ideology" that emerged in the 1920s with Savarkar and which "animates contemporary Hindu nationalism". Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Romit Bagchi is a reputed author so don't ignore him.[7] Hindu nationalism is a political and social expression based on the religious, and cultural traditions of South Asia. But Hindutva does not have any religious connotations. [8] That's the difference between Hindu Nationalism and Hindutva. Capitals00 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about books on the subject by academic publishers; nothing you have presented even comes close. As for "Hindutva does not have any religious connotations." - your personal opinion here is directly contradicted by all the sources tying the two directly together. Once again: Hindutva "animates contemporary Hindu nationalism". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Only linking the book is not gonna work. You have to tell how the same book is strengthening your position. Capitals00 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have no strong opinions about category usage, as our guidelines on the topic are both fuzzy and dreadfully enforced. However, it's patently obvious that Hindutva is the form of Hindu nationalism that prevalent in the present day, and Hindu nationalism is a superset of ideologies and practices that entirely encompasses Hindutva; the two cannot be separated. Also, the claim that there are no religious aspects to Hindutva are nonsensical; what then is it based on? Hindus are not an ethnic group in any sense of the word. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hindu nationalism has religious connotation but Hindutva does not have it.

"Hindutva 'is not a religious philosophy or a social philosophy based on cultural chauvinism, which insists that the non-Hindus of India accept their place as "minorities", whose safety and security will depend on their ability to earn the "goodwill of the majority"'. Thus at the heart of Hindutva ideology is the notion that what is good for the majority should be also good for the minorities and that any assertion of minority rights is essentially a threat and a challenge to the political authority of the majority.[9]

This sums it up. Capitals00 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You missed a phrase that reversed the meaning. Actual quote: "Hindutva 'is not a religious philosophy or a social philosophy. It is a political philosophy based on cultural chauvinism, which insists that the non-Hindus of India accept their place as "minorities", whose safety and security will depend on their ability to earn the "goodwill of the majority"'." The bolded text is what was missing. This aside, 'not a religious philosophy' does not mean 'no religious connotations'. On the contrary, it sorts Indians into the religiously contrived groupings of 'Hindus' and 'non-Hindus'. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hindutva is political but not religious. Hindu nationalism is both religious and political. That's the difference. Capitals00 (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope, both are religious and political, and ideologically borderline indistinct. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Capitals00, the very source you quote describes it as being founded in religious identity. Sure, it isn't a religious philosophy, but "Hindutva has no religious connotation" is an absurd argument, founded in neither the source material nor the common sense, and is not be taken seriously here. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

He cited a source[10] which supports the statement that Hindutva does not have religious connotations. Why it shouldn't be taken seriously? Hindutva is purely a political ideology. This Hindu nationalism#Savarkar itself state: "The coinage of the term "Hindutva" was an attempt by Savarkar who was non religious and a rationalist, to de-link it from any religious connotations that had become attached to it." Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not to be taken seriously because it's not supported by reliable sources. Have you read the source you're citing? What makes it reliable, and what does it say on this subject? What Savarkar sought to define Hindutva as is quite irrelevant; what matters is how sources define it today, and no scholarly source on the topic denies that Hindutva has religious connotations. For crying out loud, it's used interchangeably with Hindu nationalism in English-language sources outside the subcontinent. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious, which Vanamonde has already pointed out, Savarkar's page makes clear that while he may have been personally irreligious to a certain degree, he still saw religion as part of his political narrative. On 5 August 1939, Savarkar highlighted how a common strand of "thought, religion, language, and culture" was essential to nationality thus preventing the Germans and Jews from being considerable as one nation. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Protection notice

I've protected this page for 2 weeks, due to the ongoing reverting/edit-warring.

Any uninvolved admin may adjust the Protection at their discretion, without needing to notify me.

And note: Continued disruptive editing may result in further sanction, including being blocked from editing, by any uninvolved administrator.

Please discuss on the talk page in order to come to a consensus. - jc37 00:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37: Two of the editors who edit warred and added the content[11][12][13][14] which caused the actual edit war have been blocked as sockpuppets.[15] You should undo the protection. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

2 out of many, is still too many.

Working through things on the talk page is the way to handle disputed edits, not constantly reverting each other. - jc37 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Independence movement

I see that this part on the lead has been restored on the basis that Tilak was a Hindu nationalist.

I would like to know how sources support the information. Bal Gangadhar Tilak cannot be described as a Hindu nationalist because he was no influence on Hindutva ideology which is the predominant form of Hindu nationalism today as discussed above. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Tilak's own page seems to refer more to Indian nationalism instead. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I restored it on the grounds that it is long-standing content. Putting a page needed tag is the right thing to do. The Hindu nationalism of INC is discussed on dozens of sources including Jaffrelot. Some scholars even tried to coin new terms for it such as "Hindu traditionalism", which was said to be real Hindu nationalism minus xenophobia. I don't have the time to wade into it right now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have also read that source and it does not say it anywhere that Congress engaged in Hindu nationalism.[16] Instead it attempts to find parallels between what BJP is doing and what Congress was doing during Hindu nationalism. Arun R. Swamy summarizes views of Jaffrelot from this book as: "As Christophe Jaffrelot has pointed out, while the nationalism of the Congress party was essentially territorial and "civic," identifying as Indians all inhabitants of the British Indian Empire, Hindu Nationalism has sought to identify an Indian nation according to ethnic criteria. For Hindu nationalists, emphasizing Hindu identity is a way of overcoming the linguistic and regional diversity of India, by emphasizing a shared cultural heritage that also distinguished most Indians from non Indians."[17] None of these words are supportive of the disputed content. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)