Talk:Hindu terrorism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Lead

I rewrote the lead on 17th November [1]. My lead is based on the Jaffrelot article and Subhash Gatade's book (mentioned in the Bibliography). Nobody objected to anything till today when, all of a sudden, it has been hacked to death without any discussion. I am not happy about this. I will take it to WP:NPOVN. So, please state your objections here so that people can look at them (not edit summary lines, which is a lousy place to put discussion anyway). Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a new section, first of all we need to understand that any acts of terror by Hindu nationalists cannot be considered as Saffron Terror, as it is mentioned in your version of lead as well as the older version the term is a neo. Second, the most of the non hindutva thing that you tried to remove/comment were agreed upon long back, there was a big discussion, something at DRN as well. I guess this will be of some help. Third, lead is the summary of the article body, we first update the article body and then write a summary. Edit summaries like there's plenty of examples where it is proven while reverting my edits makes no sense as there are no such examples in the article. Finally we need to consider people as innocent till proven guilty by the courts. Also I don't understand why you need to base your lead on some other article or book, base your lead on the Wiki article itself. -sarvajna (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please go ahaead with WP:NPOVN if you think this is absolutely necessary here. before going into right and wrong my only concern is the sentence in the lead

"The acts are allegedly perpetrated by members, alleged members and former members of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Abhinav Bharat. However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been clearly determined,[3] and in others it has been determined to be unrelated to Hindu nationalism."

would suggest something like this

"The acts allegedly perpetrated by individuals with hindu religion belief, against other religion members"

note that the lead is simple crisp and summarises what you want to say in the article rather the one above which is confusing and may be WP:SYN , also note that the word allegedly is used with full freedom please check this "alleged" here again we do not have any trial or anything going about the organisations mentioned and claims by other authors can also be considered if the word alleged is being used.Shrikanthv (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As with our treatment of varna in lead sections, if there is any doubt regarding the role of a specific organisation in saffron terror then it might be better not to mention them in that connection in the lead. Instead, detail it only in the body, where it can be presented in a rounded manner. Sometimes it is difficult to treat things neutrally in lead sections without causing bloat and, frankly, I doubt most people read beyond that section, which makes it disproportionately a target for drive-by POV edits.

Just to clarify something else. I'm not convinced that sources have to specifically mention "saffron terror" in order to be included. Everyone knows what it means and there is no doubt that certain groups do engage in it, whether by name or otherwise. The same, of course, can be said of groups with extremist persuasions of other colours. I'm still tempted to say that this is a borderline WP:DICDEF/neologism article: it may well yet end up at AfD again. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shrikanthv: The terrorism stuff isn't really my forte. I am more of a politics guy. I was led to this article because we had to use "saffron terror" in some other context (probably Gujarat, can't locate it right now), and noticed that this page sucked. I did some research into it, found the Jaffrelot article and the Gatade's book, and rewrote the lead based on what I learnt from them. I don't think the old discussion is particularly relevant here, because it never rose above the level of P. Chidambaram, and the editor who instigated that discussion is now indefinitely blocked (no idea why).

Regarding your apprehension that talking about Hindu nationalist organisations somehow talks about "hindu religion belief," I have no idea how you got that impression. I don't know of anybody here or elsewhere that confuses the two. Neither are the acts supposedly against "other religion members", because the first victim of such acts was Mahatma Gandhi himself. Gatade's book has an entire chapter on it. Terrorism has no logic.

Regarding the use of "alleged," I don't find it necessary. We use "alleged" when we have to attribute acts to particular individuals, because individuals have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Here the BLP criteria govern that. Organisations don't have a presumption of innocence. Neither do they have BLP criteria. So, if reliable sources say they did it, we say they did it.

I have no idea what the sentence "However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been clearly determined[1]" is trying to talk about. The reference said nothing about any motivations, nor does the article say anything about it. So by your own logic about the lead summarising the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. If the motivation wasn't Hindu nationalism, we won't call it "saffron terror" or "Hindutva terrorism". So, what is this sentence talking about? It doesn't make any sense.

You have said previously that my sentence makes the organisations look bad. That is not our problem. We are not here to make anybody look good or look bad. They look whatever they look based on what they are and what they do.

So, basically, I don't see any justification for any of the changes made to my lead. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Do we have any reference for "MG assassination" being "Saffron Terror"?
• The lead has been discussed previously. Like Sarvajna, Shrikanthv and Sitush said, improve the body of the article instead of holding on to "your version" of the lead. If you are not convinced you may pursue WP:NPOVN. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The argument that the term is a neologism, carries no weight. If you genuinely believe that the term has received insufficient coverage, then according to WP:Neologism we shouldn't have this article in the first place; so somebody who holds that belief should nominate this at XFD. If the term is notable enough to have its own article, then we define and describe it exactly as the reliable sources do; which is what Kautilya had tried to do. Its nature as a neologism is then irrelevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I fully agree with Sitush that one doesn't need a source to label something saffron terror or Hindutva terror. Some people need you to produce sources to prove that you are alive. What can I say?

@AmritasyaPutra:, As I said, Ghatade's book has a chapter on Gandhi assassination: "First terrorist of independent India". Everything I have seen of Jaffrelot on the subject also mentions Gandhi assassination and Godse and Savarkar.

I see that you don't have any responses to my points stated above. That is typical! Kautilya3 (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya, read WP:OR. This has been discussed before, look at article history. --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

hindutva terror is pretty irrelevant for lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. About the reference: Pharos Group publishing has no record in academic publishing; it is an export firm. Ghatade is founder member of a 'New Socialist Initiative' committed to 'regeneration of revolutionary socialist politics'. Ghatade is an 'activist/journalist' with zero articles published in TOI or The Hindu (National Dailies). He is not a historian or academician. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra, Ah, it is nice that you check out the sources. But it would be better to check them out in the right places. Try these [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and search for his articles in EPW. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please continue our discussion with AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya, save your sarcasm. Pharos is not an academic publisher. Check their website and catalogue, they have zero academic record and their specialization is 'Islamic Books' not history. Ghatade is an engineer by training and a political activist. Of course, you did not find any articles published in TOI or The Hindu (National Dailies) by him. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please continue our discussion with AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

coming back to the discussion Hindutva terror has nothing to do with this term, this term was very much in news during the events that are mentioned in the article, that is the reason why I gave the link t old discussion. I do not see how an old discussion suddenly becomes irrelevant just because the editor was banned. The discussion doesn't go beyond P.Chidambaram because there was nothing much to consider back then and still I don't see anything that can be considered here. Apart from the OR/SYN that some editors are trying to introduce by involving Gandhi's murder or riots into this article I don't see anything that can be done. The sentence "However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been clearly determined" was suggested by an admin because many acts which have been called Saffron terror do not, in fact, meet the definition . You would have known only if you have read the discussion properly. -sarvajna (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sarvajna, you really should do your research before making a statement like that. Numerous scholars have used it since Chidambaram; google scholar turns up nearly 20,000 results for it, and multiple RS discuss the topic (see the AFD). On what basis, then, do you claim that the discussion "doesn't go beyond Chidambaram?" Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is ok. Sarvajna was explaining a comment I made about the old discussion not going beyond P. Chidambaram. But, I think all the sources that we are now talking about were already there. They didn't talk about them.

As for the line many acts which have been called Saffron terror do not, in fact, meet the definition, first of all, I find it to be too argumentative to be in a lead, and secondly I don't see any support for it in the rest of the article. Which acts? Who called them saffron terror? Why don't they meet the definition? Unless these questions are answered in the body, the sentence doesn't belong in the lead. So, if all you want to say is that somebody wanted it there a year ago, and we should continue to obey his/her edicts even if he/she is gone, I don't buy it. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The phrase that you quote: many acts which have been called Saffron terror do not, in fact, meet the definition -- is not present in the article. Straw man approach? --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya, you suddenly started to worry about the point "whats not present in the article should not be present in the lead" a good thing I feel. Coming to your point, if we start explaining everything in the lead, why have a body. What acts you say, have you even read the article? There is a section named "Alleged acts of saffron terror" and there are some acts were LeT is also accused and some acts where someone else is also accused. Looking at your argument I am starting to feel that you have really not tried to understand the old discussion. I request you to go back and read it first. That was a very weak argument IMO. _sarvajna (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Contents

I disagree with Sitush somewhat in that, as this is an article about the neologism, sources should be specifically using the term in order to be included. Otherwise the article could become an indiscriminate list of any acts of violence involving Hinduism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is the problem. Really, this is all "saffron terror" means. As a neologism, the article would likely be a paragraph in length. It should probably be redirected to something that is more generic in its coverage. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got the Usage and Criticism sections. These can be bolstered by coverage of notable incidents where the term is explicitly and constantly used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get very involved in this because it is a sure way to a block. Too many people are already taking sides for the wrong reasons, ie: religious and political beliefs. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The term has sufficient coverage to stay. In the immediately preceding section and this article's history Kautilya3 & Vanamonde93 insist that assassination of Mahatama Gandhi is "saffron Terror". Or they want to make a list of organization 'conducting' saffron terror (directly in the lead) without bothering to have any such mention in the article body or the organization's article page. This article should not be a list-of-saffron-terror/terrorists compiled by wiki editors. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This term was pretty much coined by Chidambaram and Sharad Pawar in the 2000s. There was never a talk of this term nor any academic mention before these two started it. Since then, some reliable and some questionable sources have used it. But since As far as this article is concerned, I agree that this appears to be mainly a list of attacks than an article. As some have noted, at least one in the list was alleged by International experts on Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami. There appear some instances where citations do not appear to be WP:RS. --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sd, the article gives citations to a 2002 article and 2008 article, both by journalists in Frontline, before Chidambaram ever got into the game. Chidambaram did not coin the term.

As for other groups having been responsible (allegedly), for these kind of sensational items, something or other gets printed in newspapers everyday about what somebody said. It is only when the dust settles that we get the big picture. So, going by individual news reports is the wrong thing to do. The Gatade book says this: "Assemandnd, aka Naba and Kumar Sarkar, named absconding Hindutva militants, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, as the key plotters in that [Samjhauta Express] terror attack. Sources of the NIA disclosed that the confession in connection with the train blast practically rules out the involvement of other groups, while initial investigation into the attack had looked into the possibility of the involvement of Jehadi groups." Exhaustive excerpts from the confession were published by Tehelka [8] and EPW. The Economic and Political Weekly said in its editorial on January 2011, "Now that we have Aseemananda’s confession, reading those police accounts of how Islamic terrorists executed these attacks shows the extent of the incompetence and duplicity of our men in khaki." Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, Sitush, the term "saffron terror" is not important at all. I would be quite happy to rename this article to Hindutva terror, which is the other term used. In fact, Gatade seems to have switched deliberately from 'saffron terror' to 'Hindutva terror'. In any case, I don't want to get bogged down by terminology. It is of no consequence. It is the phenomenon that matters. That phenomenon is, quite unequivocally, that the Hindutva ideology is spawning terrorists. We should all be alarmed about it, and resist all attempts to air brush it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: No, this article is about this specific term. If you wish to write about the phenomena, please write another article, preferably keeping a lid on the soapboxing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure that I am alarmed by it. It isn't a new phenomenon, there are plenty of sympathisers here on Wiki etc and, well, it is the way of the world just as much as jihadism or, historically, the Crusades etc. Once one gets alarmed, one runs the risk of losing the ability to judge things in a neutral manner. We are at least theoretically in a cocooned environment here and we should revel in that space. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya re-read last section for Ghatade book -- it is unreliable. Kindly listen. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys I am not implicating that there is no violence involved nor supporting either of the party, I do feel there is a diference between Riot and terrorism , here most of the gujurat violence is being miss named to terrorism and also unrelated event stiched up really a gossip or a consiperacy Shrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Gujarat riots have been referred academically as riots and in some cases by some sources as conspiracy by both sides to a varying degree (Godhra train and aftermath riots with greater blame placed on Hindu rioters). However there is absolutely no consensus on Gujarat riots as acts of terrorism. That however does not negate the notoriety of the acts committed during those riots (again by both sides to uneven degree) - but it is absolutely not referred to as saffron terrorism. They were for the most part referred to as riot acts of horror but not terrorism. --Sdmarathe (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This is absolutely preposterous. Nominating an article for deletion for no reason at all. Gatade insisted on using Hindutva terror in place of Hindu terror not saffron terror. In fact, the word 'saffron' is just a colour, it is neither a religion nor an ideology, it is a colour which happens to have a religious or ideological significance, hence, the term is very neutral and doesn't point out to a particular religion or ideology, it only points out to a group of saffron-clad people or organisation who are allegedly considered a terrorist group, therefore, the term saffron terror.Thinkmaths (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thinkmaths: I agree with you that it is an unreasonable AfD. But now that it is there, the right thing for us to do is to participate in it. So, please express your views on there: wp:Articles_for_deletion/Saffron_terror#Saffron_terror. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, Sitush, Thanks for your advice. Wise words! Coming back to the topic, this page might have been about the term "saffron terror" originally, but it is equally about the phenomenon right now. The information is out there in the public domain and it will find its way here. I don't see how we can stop it, even assuming that it makes sense to stop it. So, the best thing to might be to start a new page on "Hindutva terror" from scratch and base it on good sources so that it doesn't degenerate into another fist fight. I will think about it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

the term saffron terror had only been started by congress for political gains and latched on by biased sources. What you call so called terror groups are only labeled for political and religious gains. No reliable scholarly source that is WP:NPOV had used the terrorist adjective to the groups you refer. They have however used The term right wing Hindu nationalist. The article at its very least should mention that it's an allegedly political term and elaborate on that if so desired. this should not be a list of "alleged" attacks some of which are not even referred to as terrorist acts and some are known linked to other groups. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: That's a cowardly cop out. For the same reason, I would claim that the word Islamic terrorism was started out by the Shivsena for political and religious gains and to vilify the All India Muslim League. The article discusses about the term which was first mentioned in a magazine named Frontline, this term was invented by the media for the purposes of explaining the alleged hand of Hindu extremists in acts of terror.14.139.128.13 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No it is not - 14.139.128.13. Islamic terrorism was a term coined long before Shiv Sena even existed - to be exact 7th century when the whole wave of conquests and conversions started (also read crusades - and for their part Christian crusades were equally aggressive at one point). FYI the article in Wikipedia on Islamic terrorism is a well written article describing the entire history and all the countries it has been active with proper contents, citations, without undue sensationalism. In contrast, the article in question looks like a hodge podge of a list just to create hype. If you want to give example, at least give a right one. --Sdmarathe (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, keep a track of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Saffron terror as well. A lot of interesting discussions are happening there as well.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Saffron terror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130315105709/http://bjpkarnataka.org:80/downloads/bjp-logo-and-flags/ to http://bjpkarnataka.org/downloads/bjp-logo-and-flags
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130921055953/http://social.ndtv.com/wethepeople/permalink/20556 to http://social.ndtv.com/wethepeople/permalink/20556
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130123232004/http://mha.gov.in:80/pdfs/flagcodeofindia.pdf to http://mha.gov.in/pdfs/flagcodeofindia.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110616100614/http://www.dailypioneer.com/136393/Rip-off-secular-medias-mask.html to http://www.dailypioneer.com/136393/Rip-off-secular-medias-mask.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduction

Don't you feel it's a misnomer when there is the term "alleged" in almost every line in introduction. When it isn't so sure or just playing on alleged, title must be also alleged, or new title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasishta infowatch (talk • contribs) 06:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is a mess because of over-reliance on newspapers rather than scholarly sources. Newspapers don't do enough research to find out which allegations are reliable and which aren't. I have a draft page based on scholarly sources at User:Kautilya3/Hindutva terror. When it is completed, I intend to install it and make this page a redirect to it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

biased article!!

This article is not neutral and it reflects writer's views rather than conclusions based on the facts. Is should be either edited or removed. 117.234.173.94 (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please list the specific edits you would make. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please list the Hindu terror outfits listed by some international bodies like UN or by Indian government or US government. this article is all about some x politician said so. please improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.179.81 (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Saffron Terror Debunked

As per investigation by Times Now, the whole saffron terror conspiracy was floated by the UPA government. This is a conspiracy and has no backing anymore. This article therefore needs drastic and significant changes to match the reality as supported by the new investigations.

Reference Links

india.com

timesnow.tv

Times of India

NDTV

Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing called "Saffron Terror". It was a conspiracy. Please, either add that it was a conspiracy by the UPA government or kindly remove this article. This does not give the full truth and it is very misleading. Ananya sastry (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

My link to a data-driven article in Open Magazine debunking "Saffron/Hindu terror" based on a detailed analysis from the Global Terrorism Database was reverted frivolously. This is one of the few authoritative pieces of academic stature on this topic vs anecdotal accounts. The claim was that the article does not call it a myth, while that is the very title of the article. A full revert of this very relevant reference shows bad faith This needs to be restored. Puck42 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is best classified as an opinion piece. "Pieces of academic stature" are the ones that are published in peer review journals where the analysis and data sources can be appropriately whetted. --regentspark (comment) 19:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I following article in fact baser report by IndiaTV and its journalist Rajat Sharma. I am sure it will qualifies. Please take a look.

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india-samjhauta-express-blast-how-officials-connived-to-ensure-prime-accused-pakistani-national-was-let-off-despite-evidence-387479

Times of India also published regarding this calling it cover up by UPA government.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/samjhauta-express-blasts-upa-cover-up-questioned/articleshow/59261489.cms

NIA clears Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur to apply for discharge in case

anyone up to update the article with this latest information. --Swami16 (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Lead revert

@Kautilya3: restored a undiscussed lead change from 8 May[9] despite heavy discussions in archive[10][11] and the article itself says on sections such as Saffron_terror#Torture_by_Maharashtra_ATS, Saffron_terror#2007_Samjhauta_Express_bombings and more, that these incidents are alleged but also said to be unrelated to Saffron terror. Per WP:BRD a single misinformed edit from 8 May is clearly not the consensus version for the lead. Capitals00 (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The original lead was this. It was apparently watered down by POV pushers over the years, and Kashmiri was basically restoring the original. We now have much better sources available:

• Gatade, Subhash (27 May 2006). "Portents of Nanded: Bajrang Dal and the Bomb?". Economic and Political Weekly: 2055–2057. JSTOR 4418256.
• Editorial (15 November 2008). "Hindutva's Terrorism Links". Economic and Political Weekly. XLIII (46): 5. JSTOR 40278164.
• Editorial (22 May 2010). "Unravelling Hindutva Terrorism". Economic and Political Weekly: 8–9.
• Jaffrelot, Christophe (4 September 2010). "Abhinav Bharat, the Malegaon Blast and Hindu Nationalism: Resisting and Emulating Islamist Terrorism". Economic and Political Weekly. XLV (36): 51–58.
• Jaffrelot, Christophe (5 February 2011). "Paradigm Shifts by the RSS? Lessons from Aseemanand's Confession". Economic and Political Weekly. XLVI (6): 42–46. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
• Gittinger, Juli (10 September 2011). "Saffron Terror: Splinter or Symptom?". Economic and Political Weekly. XLVI (37).
• Jaffrelot, Christophe (21 July 2012). "Malegon: Who is above the Law?". Economic and Political Weekly. XXVII (29): 17–18.
• Bassett, Donna (2012), Peter Chalk (ed.), Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO, pp. 647–648, ISBN 0313308950 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_title= ignored (help)
• Gatade, Subhash (29 March 2014). "Pawns in, Patrons Still out: Understanding the Phenomenon of Hindutva Terror". Economic and Political Weekly. XLIX (13).

Please feel free to rewrite the content according to them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead you linked was not original, rather one-sided and had been changed quickly upon consensus. 4 of these sources are written by same author (Jaffrelot) and already mentioned. There are many others sources to weigh upon the sentence: [12] [13] Capitals00 (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the sources, wouldn't it be better to rename the article to Hindutva terrorism or Hindu terrorism?VR _talk 23:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Support. "Saffron terror" should then redirect there. — kashmiri ^TALK 00:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

2008 Malegaon blasts

I request following lines to be added in the end of Malegaon blasts section.

A secret deposition of the Ministry of Defence that was submitted to the court which suggests Lt Colonel Purohit was innocent of the terror charges that are being leveled against him.

source: http://www.timesnow.tv/newshour-shorts/video/lt-col-purohit-saffron-terror-scapegoat/59672 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swami16 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit to 2002 Gujarat riots

Why is more text being added about the train attack than the actual subject of the section? [14] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Our article on Godhra train burning says "The event is widely perceived as the trigger for the riots that followed." El_C 11:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Yes, but the same article suggests that the description is disputed; and it is the same sources which say that the Gujarat violence was planned, and not a spontaneous reaction, that use Saffron Terror in that context. Now the article does not reflect this, agreed, but that is not reason for using it as a coatrack for stuff about what triggers violence against Muslim people. Vanamonde (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that our article on 2002 Gujarat riots also says the same thing: "The burning of a train in Godhra on 27 February 2002, which caused the deaths of 58 Hindu pilgrims karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, is believed to have triggered the violence." El_C 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I don't know enough about the event to comment—but I hope your claim has it's basis on reliable sources that represent due weight. El_C 12:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I suppose my question is whether this article should mirror our other two articles more specific to the event (should Godhra train burning be mentioned?). El_C 12:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I don't have an issue with the turn burning being mentioned but having more text about that event than the riots themselves seems problematic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we get rid of the subsection on the 2002 Gujarat riots. It wasn't a terrorist incident in the normal sense of the term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I think it is ok to mention the train burning but further down in the paragraph. Perhaps "The riots, which are believed to have been triggered by the Godhra train burning incident, are part of ...". The edit by the simple human is obvious POV.--regentspark (comment) 12:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This article isn't about terrorism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, it's about "acts of violence motivated by Hindu nationalism." I think regentspark has the right idea. El_C 12:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are no other objections to the proposed wording, I will add this soon. Capitals00 (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"The article is subjective and is open to wide interpretations. For Eg- Gujarat Riots 2002 were the ripple effects of the burning of train (samjhauta Express) by the Muslim community carrying Kar Sevaks. The incident was pre-planned and many kar sevaks were burned alive. Kindly present the true and holistic picture of the incidents. In the majority of riots that took place in India Muslims were the aggressors for Eg- Muzaffarnagar Riots. M6176 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by M6176 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2017

The article is subjective and is open to wide interpretations. For Eg- Gujarat Riots 2002 were the ripple effects of the burning of train (samjhauta Express) by the Muslim community carrying Kar Sevaks. The incident was pre-planned and many kar sevaks were burned alive. Kindly present the true and holistic picture of the incidents. In the majority of riots that took place in India Muslims were the aggressors for Eg- Muzaffarnagar Riots. M6176 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Samjhauta Express blast: How officials connived to ensure prime accused Pakistani national was let off despite evidence to nail him

I request the editors to rewrite the page after reading following report by Rajat Sharma who is a journalist from India TV.

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india-samjhauta-express-blast-how-officials-connived-to-ensure-prime-accused-pakistani-national-was-let-off-despite-evidence-387479

S Gurumurthy also Exposed Pak’s Hand Behind Samjhauta Blast in 2013 with Crucial Rebuttals

http://rightactions.in/2017/06/21/see-how-s-gurumurthy-exposed-paks-hand-behind-samjhauta-blast-in-2013-with-crucial-rebuttals

Samjhauta Express blasts: UPA ‘cover-up’ questioned

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/samjhauta-express-blasts-upa-cover-up-questioned/articleshow/59261489.cms

There is also Times Now News Hour Debate over this issue.

Did UPA 'Discharge' Pakistan's Terrorist? | The Newshour Debate (20th June)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO_8OzYcEgI

Samjhauta Express Blast: Did UPA Compromise India? | The Newshour Debate (21st June)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQRfqsVzRwY

Samjhauta blast: SIMI man’s narco test ‘nails’ Pak angle

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/samjhauta-blast-simi-mans-narco-test-nails-pak-angle/articleshow/59747809.cms

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swami16 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

--Swami16 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these links. Capitals00 (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

For instance, the US declared a Pakistani national to be involved - US sanctions Pak Lashkar man, cites his Samjhauta blast link

Pakistani Minister Rehman Malik blamed Pakistani Islamists for carrying out the attack at Pak blames India for not providing details about Samjhauta Express bomb blast Talking with media persons here, Malik claimed that Lt.Col. Purohit had hired some Pakistani extremists to carry out the train bombing in 2007. This clearly demonstrates that there were some Pakistan-based Islamists who had been hired to carry out the Samjhauta Express attack.

The Prime suspect for the Bombings were Lashkar-e-taiba (LET) , A United States report declared Arif Qasmani to be involved in the attack. Consequently, after consulting with the United Nations, the United States declared him an international terrorist , How can india be blamed for this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M6176 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Saffron Terror : The reality..

The term "Saffron Terror" itself is coined purposely to demean Hindu Religion. It is a result of continuous conspiracy to malign and maim Peaceful Hindu Religion which has a History of Accomodating every other Religion. Hindu religion is the only Religion which never attempted at forcing others to accept it. It is the only Religion without an Expansionist agenda. So this Entire attempt at coining a new Term "Saffron Terror" is absolute attempt at maligning a peace full Religion. Jsdeshmukh1987 (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jsdeshmukh1987: See WP:NOTFORUM and focus your comments on how the article can be improved using reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Candidate for Deletion?

This seems to be more of a conspiracy theory than of any serious scholarly merit. Most of the cases tagged under Saffron Terrorism are proved to be fake and the term is not taken seriously. It can be had as a historic curiosity explicitly stating that this is a fake movement introduced to defame Hinduism. Instead, deleting the article will make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.201.133.165 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Must be deleted

This article is pure rubbish and must be deleted. Also can anybody explain the existence of non-Hindu places of worship almost in every corner of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.193.194 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, after you explain the existence of Hindu places of worship in nearly every corner of the world. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Logical fallacy in lead section

Someone please correct this nonsense.in the lede: "Saffron terror is ... acts of violence motivated by Hindu nationalism. (...) In some cases motivation [for the acts being the subject of this article???] is ... unrelated to Hindu nationalism."

This is as if the article about birds had such a definition: "Birds are endothermic vertebrates with wings, feathers and toothless jaws. Some vertebrates are not birds."

Non sequitur?

— kashmīrī ^TALK 07:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A more analogy might be, "Birds are vertebrates with wings, feathers and toothless jaws. Some birds are non-vertebrate." Note that the subject proposition is being negated in the later part of the sentence i.e. "... unrelated to Hindu nationalism", when in the first part, it says "acts of violence motivated by Hindu nationalism". Rioter 1 (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

2002 Gujarat riots

Main articles: 2002 Gujarat riots and Godhra train burning

The 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, where the majority of victims were Muslims, are attributed largely to "foot soldiers" of the Hindutva movement. The riots are part of aftermath of the burning of Godhara train where Muslim mob targeted specific coach of the train where most Hindu pilgrims who were coming from Ayodhya. 59 people were burnt alive, in which 25 were women and 25 were children. link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots Anghanravi (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Mention of 1992 Demolition of Babri Masjid

The page has no mention of the 1992 Demolition of Babri Masjid, which was one of the most famous acts of Hindu terrorism, and had far reaching national and international consequences. --I am not an Octopus (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

No, mere demolition of any structures, religious or not, is not considered terrorism. Terrorism is intrinsically linked to physical violence to a person. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

There is nothing like Saffron terror. RSS helps poor and talks about Nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.76.45.2 (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

More development on Swami Aseemanand and bigger conspiracy

Please do read latest Times Now expose on how UPA government pressurized NIA chief to consider Swami Aseemanand interview to Caravan as a truth, but later failed to allow forensic evaluation of the interview recorded on tape.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/bhagwat-was-on-upa-terror-blacklist/articleshow/59602901.cms

debate on the same

http://www.timesnow.tv/the-newshour/debate/bhagwat-a-‘terror-suspect’-for-upa/65970

There exists no such thing like Saffron Terrorism. It was invented by UPA as a part of its propaganda to defame Hinduism, Hindutva and groups related to Hindutva like RSS. The truth is that after so much investigation none of the accused was convicted in cases related to Saffron Terrorism and all allegations were politically motivated and accusations against innocents were made to hide its inability to capture its Islamic perpetrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:230F:8886:2AD1:21CD:7998:AB3C (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC) </ref> Praveen Tiwari, a senior journalist has also written a book The Great Indian Conspiracy after exhaustive research, published by Bloomsbury. An extensive research on communal politics, the book offers indisputable evidence of the 'saffron terrorism' theory as the Great Indian Conspiracy.

• political gains for electoral benefits and criticism -

In 26/11, before the role of Pakistan came into light, some Congress leader had tried to gains political space to get the electoral benefit by defaming the organization like RSS by accusing them behind the attack,a book named "26/11 : RSS ki Sazish"(RSS's Conspiracy) written by Aziz Burney (Editor-in-Chief of Urdu Sahara newspaper) was released by Congress General Secreatary Digvijay Singh that talks about the hand behind 26/11 Mumbai Attacks and the contents of the book also insinuated that the attacks happened as a result of a joint conspiracy between CIA and Mossad.

Former Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy says that after the terrorist attack on Mumbai, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has suggested a surgical strike but the (then) government resorted to caution and restraint. In August 2009, the then joint secretary of the Indian external affairs ministry T C A Raghavan complained to chiefs of foreign missions that Pakistan was failing to take action against Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Hafiz Saeed and it was making it difficult for India to move forward with “meaningful engagement” in relations with Pakistan. The UPA government stand on tackling Mumbai and other attacks in the country only got diluted further as its term progressed.

Senior Congress leader, Salman Khurshid says in his book 'Understanding Islam in Indian Democracy' that the then Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit did not want an enquiry into the 2008 Batla House encounter in which Indian Mujahideen terrorists were killed, as she felt it would "hijack" the Assembly elections in which she was seeking re-election , It was not just Dikshit but then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Delhi Lt Governor Tejendra Khanna too was against such an enquiry

In Mecca masjid blast, former MHA Under Secretary , accused the government for misusing NIA for protecting the perpetrator He further added that there was no Hindu terror angle in the case and the evidence was engineered. “I had expected it. All the pieces of evidence were engineered, otherwise, there was no Hindu terror angle,” Ex MHA official said.

In February 2016, one of the officer in Ishrat Jahan case, former Intelligence Bureau Special Director Rajinder Kumar, said he was pressured and offered "allurements" to implicate the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the case in an attempt to defame Modi. He said there was a conspiracy against Modi led by a senior Congress leader from Gujarat. Another bureaucrat , RVS Mani had said that he was tortured to sign the affidavit in Ishrat Jahan murder case

Ex MHA under Secretary, RVS Mani in his book Hindu Terror : Insider account of ministry of Home affairs, highlighted the circumstances around Internal Ministry

" At a time when we had the best team in the IAS Division of the MHA, The attitude of the government in power and intent to colour every terror incident as 'saffron' and their ambivalence in acting against the real perpetrators of the terror attacks was making this country a cannon fodder for those with evil designs against India"

— Hindu Terror: Insider account of Ministry of Home affairs

Senior journalist, Minhaz merchant pointed out that government had tried to paint the colour of the terrorist when they need to punish the real perpetrators

References

'Incidents' section should be renamed

Most of the incidents cited are sub-judice. In some of the cases, the Hindu accused have been avquitted by courts and allegations are upon terrorist orgabisations associated with Pakistan. I think Grahm Steines killing incident is the only exception to this general observation.

To comply with NPOV, I suggest two steps:

1. The section presently named 'Incidents' be renamed to Alleged incidents, asap.
2. The same section be split into two : that of confirmed incidents of Saffron Terror and that of alleged incidents. This second step will require in depth review of latest literature on the matter.

The article in general reflects the latest developments inadequately. - Mukt (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Incidents are not "alleged". They happened. People died. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not an article about terrorism in general. There are other articles for that. Incidents listed here are supposed to be of a particular cause. If that cause itself is not firmly established, maybe an encyclopedia should abstain from listng them in the entry for that cause. And if they are listed, their uncertain status must be prominenty indicated. However, I agree with your semantic point. Does title Incidents alleged to have happened due to Saffron Terror satisfy your concern? Also, I'll be happier if my second point is given due consideration. - Mukt (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We're not concerned with how the courts describe the incidents; we're concerned with how all reliable sources do. If sources describe something as an incident of saffron terrorism, then that's what we need to do, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

We should not dispute what the sources say, but we are full liberty to categorize events as per their best known status. It is misleading to categorize killing of Grahman Staines, which is an undisputed example of Saffron Terror, alongside Malegaon Blasts, where even UPA govt gave names of Islamic terrorists to UN as culprits. Note that my second point is that the incidents must be split into two categories (at least two, could be more). - Mukt (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Saffron Terrorism Or Gerua Terrorism

Having read so much about "Saffron Terrorism" it is considered unfortunate to link a nature's beautiful gift "safron" with ugly word Terrorism. Though the central idea of the title is very relevant and it is believed to be the most notorious shape of terrorism ever existed, however the connection betwen saffron with terrorism is due peculiar "Gerua" color (resembling color of saffron). It is considered more appropriate to name this ugliest form of terrorism as "Gerua Terrorism". Saleem99a (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Saffron colour comes from Hindi *Kesariya* (केसरिया) which is significant to Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Indic religions. The term *Saffron Terrorism* was coined in an attempt to pin terror as an aspect of these religions, differentiating it from Islamic terrorism which is long associated with colours green and black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukt (talk • contribs) 08:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Torture by Maharashtra ATS

The section has insufficient reasons to be included here. Yes, the victim called it "saffron terrorism". But she is a non-neutral source. We need a neutral source which called this incident as a case of saffron terror. Otherwise the section must be deleted.

By the way, the same consideration must be applied to other incidents. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any requirement of the section here as it comes in 2008 Malegaon blasts sub-section and the details of this can be read in 29 September 2008 western India bombings. Absolute no need to add here. Dey subrata (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

" 2018 Court Verdict" section

The section in itself makes absolutely no sense. Is it supposed to be a subsection of some case? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The section does make sense as the court verdict led to a renewed discussion on this term, with accusations being made that the Congress coined this term for political gains. Hence, some additional information relevant to this article needs to be added. Also, it should be generalized to include the 2019 verdict on Samjhauta blasts too for the same reason. Bharatiya29 21:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Gujarat riots

The entire section on Gujarat riots needs to be removed as there is no source cited which terms it as "saffron terror". The sole reference (Anheier and Juergensmeyer, 2012) has only one occurrence of the term, which is "The so-called saffron terror, which is controversially linked to some extremist Hindu organizations, promises to indicate a new phase in the Hindu-related movements in India. In other words, Hinduism, as practiced in contemporary India, has been re-imagined and re-invented by the forces of modernity, nationalism, and democracy." Bharatiya29 20:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is with the article title, not with the section. Sources clearly discuss the Gujarat riots as an incident (or series of incidents) of terrorism motivated by Hindutva. It's the neologism "Saffron terror" that they do not use. The same probably applies to the Graham Staines murder, though I'm less familiar with those sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Which sources? The term Saffron terror was not even in play when those riots took place. How would you describe 1984 anti-Sikh riots as? Riots are not terrorist acts. Capitals00 (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This one, for example:

• Swami, Praveen (16 March 2002). "Saffron Terror". Frontline. Retrieved 2014-12-10.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Terror yes...a riots creates terror and are act of terrorism, called as domestic terrorism. Any act which creates terror among the community is a terrorist act. Dey subrata (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Subrata, I understand where you are coming from. But no WP:OR please. This is Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't throw concept of OR on me, its you who need it most.

I am going by Definition of terrorism. Here for your enlightenment,

Encyclopedia(Britannica)- "violence to create a general climate of fear"

MW dictionary- "a state of intense or overwhelming fear", "violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion".

Human Rights Organisations- " acts of violence that target civilians in the pursuit of political or ideological aims."

United Nations- the perpetration of a criminal act (such as murder, kidnapping, hostage-taking, arson, and so on), or threatening such an act; the intent to spread fear among the population (which would generally entail the creation of public danger) or directly or indirectly coerce a national or international authority to take some action, or to refrain from taking it; when the act involves a transnational element.

FBI- "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."

Here city of Austin describing about domestic terrorism 1

Here is a research paper, 1- "An action must also be carried out for political, economic, religious, or social purposes to count as terrorism. Attacks perpetrated by white extremists have discernable sociopolitical motivations, and so are considered acts of terrorism.

Or Read here 1- "use or threat of violence that aims to spread fear in a population, and to advance a political, ideological or religious cause". Do I need to give more citations.

Please, don't speak what a politician/establishment/administration describe terrorism is, cause establishements never actually describe it and often use the term for their political gain. One such ironic case is of attack at Los Angeles concert, where a terrosrist killed 52 people with machine gun in 10 minutes and wounded around 500, and many more such but American police denied to call it a terrorsim, if this is not terrorism than what else. 1 So not my words, But this is terrorism, any violent acts with a political, economic, religious or social goal is terrorism. Those riots are religiously and politically motivated in both side, not talking about one side, but is a terrorism. Dey subrata (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST, and by implication "terrorism", are value-laden labels. You cannot use them unless a preponderant collection of sources use them. Trying to apply labels by interpreting dictionary definitions is regarded as WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect inclusion of cow vigilante incidents

Panda619 is continuously engaging in an edit war by incorrectly including cow vigilante incidents to this article. Since this is a controversial topic, any major changes like this should be first discussed on the talk page. Bharatiya29 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why cow vigilalante cases are not saffron terrorism. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Bharatiya29, its a POV for saying its not a terror. People have been killed and murdered and lynched by cow vigilantees. Certain section of society is terrorised by cow vigilantees. The article and this section well describe the terrorism. I don't see any reason of removing the section. Its not Panda619, but you are edit warring without clarifying your reasons. I would ask you to self revert the section. Dey subrata (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources labeling it as "saffron terror"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me, ofcorse it is, when the group is affiliated to RSS and attackers carrying saffron flag and intentionally taking name of Hindu Gods and supported by BJP. Anyway for source, here- The Washington Post, Gulf News, The Diplomat, NewYork Times, The Economic Times, HRW, The Economic Times Dey subrata (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

None of the articles you cite uses the term "saffron terror". Please read the question again. its a POV for saying its not a terror -- nobody denies it is terrorism. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Saffron terrorism, hindutva terrorism, cow terrorism by hindu nationalist group, its same. You are asking me to show "Water is colour less" But I am showing you "Water has no colour". So what are you asking. I really don't get your logic. The lead has well decribed what is a saffron terrorism- Terrorism by hindu nationlist groups. So what else you want to dig in it? Dey subrata (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No. This article is only about the events that have been labelled "saffron terror". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, it is becoming clear that "saffron" is not what you are after, but rather "terror". If you want to apply it to Cow vigilante violence in India, you need to take it to that page. You can't just squish it in here. This page has a well-defined scope, and that scope hasn't disappeared. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

How does Cow vigilante violence doesn't come under Saffron Terror, the neologism used to describe acts of violence motivated by Hindu nationalism, add the section back, since it should be part of this page and the main page of Cow vigilante violence in India is already mentioned in the section as main article, so nobody is squishing it here, its just few para introduction of that topic and if you want be blind and ask for sources labelled with "saffron terror", here some 1, 2. Panda619 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see either of these sources labelling cow vigilantism as "saffron terror". Please feel free to provide quotes if you disagree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

lol, scroll's article is under saffron terror category, It is the first two words on the top of the article, which talks about cow vigilantism. Panda619 (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Then why does it have sections called "saffron terror" and "Hindu terror"? Your difficulty in being able to provide quotes clearly shows that you are engaging in WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Graham Staines

It should be mentioned that the killing of Graham Staines was cited as "Saffron terror" by Praful Bidwai who was a left-leaning columnist. Although I am not even entirely sure if his comment is significant enough to be mentioned here, even if it is done it should be attributed to him as it is his personal opinion. Bharatiya29 20:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Seems irrelevant to the subject. Capitals00 (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Once the name change of the page happens, issues can be solved. Dey subrata (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please give specific examples rather than blanket statements such as "this Wikipedia article is not being edited from a "neutral" point of view". Thanks.--I am not a Seahorse (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Saffron terror → Hindu nationalist terrorism – The suggested term is more self-descriptive. It is also more neutral, since it is more specific: it speaks not about all Hindus, but specifically about Hindu nationalists. . Compare "Nationalist terrorism", Jewish religious terrorism , etc.The use of the neologism may be explained in a separate section. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that will solve all issues, as citations use different names, like hindutva and hindu nationalist terrorism mostly rather than Saffron Terrorism. Dey subrata (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, Please open the discussion at WP:RMCD. I don't find any discussion of the move there. Dey subrata (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The bot will do that automatically. El_C 19:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd prefer the term "Hindutva terrorism"; "Hindu nationalism" and "Hindutva" are used virtually interchangeably today, but that wasn't always the case, and if the page is discussing contemporary incidents then we ought to avoid confusion by using the more specific term. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • And I'd prefer a more generic term. The usage of the term "Hindutva" is just as controversial as "saffron". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Controversy is not a reason not to use a title. Hindu nationalism is just as controversial, as I've said, because in contemporary sources it is used to mean the same thing. However, other things are also referred to as Hindu nationalism, and you would be opening the door to all sorts of coatracking. Furthermore, the problem with the term "Saffron terror" was not that it was controversial, it's that it is something of a neologism. We were giving credence to a term not widely used in the sources. "Hindutva" is widely used in scholarly sources to describe the ideology that these incidents are described as being motivated by. As such, there's no issues with it's usage. If you're not interested in modifying the proposal, it's going to be an oppose from me. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Staszek Lem and Vanamonde93, I think we should go with "Hindutva terrorism", is the best fitted for the name, Hindutva is the origin of Hindu nationalism, Hindutva mainly and express more about the ethnic nationalism, it (mostly political and little bit of social) gives the core ideology of violence where as hindu nationalism consists of social, political and cultural thoughts also. So better we use "Hindutva Terrorism". I think you just need to change the name from the requested move. I support move for Hindutva Terrorism. Dey subrata (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No Hindutva is not the origin of Hindu nationalism. However I am leaning to accept your arguments in favor of "Hindutva terrorism". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Well its indeed the foundation (the present form, the pseudo thoughts), Savarkar gave the concept on hindutva and is first concept which gave the present form of Hindu nationalism not that what its written in Hindu nationalism#History, those great personalities (most of them) were Hindu reformers and patriotic not nationalist. Irony is mentions of Gandhi, S.C Bose, Vivekanda, Tilak, Aurobindo Ghosh is there, rofl. That section is a serious joke. Savarkar's Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?, Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History and Golwalkar's Bunch of Thoughts gave ideas of present form of Hindu nationalism. Dey subrata (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

So far there are 3 potential votes for an alternative suggestion for the title, "Hindutva terrorism" Let us see other opinions. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose These proposed names are too far from challenging the present title per WP:COMMONNAME which is also preferred by high quality sources.[15] Capitals00 (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Same high quality source 1 says Hindutva terrorism, along with that other reliable sources too, Indiatoday, The Hindu Businessline AlJazeera says Hindutva or Hindu nationalist terrorism. Dey subrata (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just use Hindu Terrorism or Hindu Terror, since Hindutva includes all Indian religions not just Hinduism or have consensus that any "acts of violence motivated by Hindu nationalism" can be included under the present title Saffron Terror. Panda619 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no Muslim terrorism, but Islamic terrorism, no religion spread violence, but pseudo concept, as Hindutva concept spread violence not Hindu/Hinduism, thus Hindutva terrorism or Hindu nationalist terrorism is more justified an daccurate. Dey subrata (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, I'll recommend you to abstain from WP:OR. You may believe Hindutva to be a "pseudo concept" or a cause of violence, but your personal opinion is of no significance unless it is backed by reliable neutral sources. Bharatiya29 17:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Read what I said, before commenting. I said, Hindu terrorism is pseudo concept. Don't just copy someone else comment and put it here. And saffron terror is not popular, all reliable sources call either Hindutva or Hindu nationalist terrorism.Dey subrata (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It's called quoting, not copying. Bharatiya29 19:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As per WP:COMMONNAME. A lot of the arguments in support of the move as a clear case of WP:OR. Wikipedia doesn't rely on an editor's opinion on Hindutva; it relies on reliable neutral sources. "Hindu terrorism" is also a neologism, so it's better to go with "Saffron terror" which is a more popular variant due to Chidambaram, and the scope of the article should be kept limited to the term usage and criticism. Bharatiya29 17:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Here what sources says- Indiatoday, The Hindu Businessline AlJazeera 4. All says it as Hindutva terrorism or Hindu nationalist terrorism. Dey subrata (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Googling "saffron terror" gives 3x more results than "hindutva terrorism". Just cherry-picking some sources doesn't prove that the former is a more popular term. Bharatiya29 19:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That could be because it is an older term and so has more accumulated occurrences over the years. The Google ngram viewer, which doesn't seem to have either "saffron terror" or "hindutva terror" in its database, shows that the related terms "saffron party" and "saffronisation" are definitely going down in usage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

We should look at the overall term usage rather than the recent trends. And "saffron party" and "saffronisation" are completely different topics. First one is probably a slang for BJP, and the second one was an allegation on the Vajpayee govt regarding the changes made in the NCERT textbooks (no surprise its usage has gone down because that thing happened more than a decade ago). Bharatiya29 14:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to Hindutva terrorism - "Saffron terror" is an old term and is out of fashion. Even in the old times it required an explanation because nobody knew what "saffron" meant. "Hindutva terrorism" is clear and straightforward and covers the majority of the events detailed here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• 'Oppose move. per wp:commonname. Crawford88 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to Hindutva terrorism. I agree with the justification by Kautilya3--DBigXrayᗙ 13:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose None of these titles are NPOV either. Saffron terror has 75k results in Google searches making it many times more WP:COMMONNAME. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Not quite align with WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:CONSISTENT as described by Kautilya3 above also about the recent term, its an old term and article have been there for several years, saffron terror makes it confuse as the saffron used by 4 major religions and hindutva makes it very precise too. WP:UCRN says "some topics have multiple names... such names will usually best fit the five criteria", must go according to WP:CONCISE too. Dey subrata (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Not helpful since we are not allowed to create titles per our wishes but what meets WP:TITLE. This topic lacks any other name than 'saffron terror'. ML ⁹¹¹ 05:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: Your comment is a borderline case of WP:OR. Your point, about "saffron terror" not being precise enough, can be added to the criticism section (if backed by some reliable source), but it is not a valid reason to move the article. Your comment also reflects a poor understanding of the article topic itself. The article covers the neologism used to refer to the controversial topic of "Hindu terrorism", but not "Hindu terrorism" itself. Hence the point regarding multiple names doesn't even apply here. Bharatiya29 20:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - from the above discussion and a quick Google, it seems that the current name is the most common one for this phenomenon, and it's also precise (Hindu terrorism could refer to a wider variety of topics). Seems best to stick with the status quo.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clean Chit to Sadhvi Pragya and Indresh Kumar by NIA

http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/ajmer-blast-case-nia-files-closure-report-against-sadhvi-pragya-and-indresh-kumar/614070/

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/nia-clears-sadhvi-pragya-thakur-indresh-kumar-of-ajmer-dargah-blast/story-Wd5MsSz3Lq5knsBJ4cLBGP.html

http://www.news18.com/news/india/ajmer-blast-case-nia-files-closure-report-clean-chit-to-sadhvi-pragya-1367820.html

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/nia-closes-ajmer-case-against-sadhvi-pragya-indresh-kumar-4598327/

the clean chit was given By supreme court😒the same supreme court who Did shah bano case and even gave area to Wakat board for babri masjid. Akshat1233 (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2021

Vishnu Sooraj (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Hatred towards hindus

This is pure hatred towards hindus there's no article on islamic terror and now on saffron terror. Vishnu Sooraj (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

There is an article on Islamic terror. Kaiju2468 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie is removing everything

He is removing everything with random policy excuses. He is white washing. Many links changed. Example https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/saffron-terror/article6805169.ece and many links in archive. Mynameisarnav (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mynameisarnav: Hai I understand your concern; but the link you've provided is not in the any of the changes I've made on this article, I have copied the link you provided and searched it with every edit diffs of mine but couldn't find it so I probably didn't remove it. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It's this edit where you removed a non-working link without searching for it's newer location. Hemanthah (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Content moved

[16] This content was moved to main article Mecca Masjid blast —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

What have you done here exactly? The content that said "HuJI was actually behind attacks" was a wrong summary of the cited sources. Every one of them says alleged, accused of and so on. And you've based your move on this.

For eg, the HT article has CBI disputing NCTC version and says "CBI’s probe findings, however, have claimed that an Indore-based terror outfit whose members were allegedly linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh perpetrated the mosque attack."

The Frontline sources you've removed are simply available at new links. Which you would've seen from a simple search.

Your WP:NOR edits without any edit summary also seem impetuous. The allegations have been credibly made as shown in sources (like for eg, HT article)

Since what you've done is based on incorrect reading of the sources and appears to have involved very little effort in actually reading/locating sources, I've requested all your edits be reverted. Hemanthah (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2021

Revert User:Echo1Charlie's edits, restore to 1037853581

His series of edits have removed content with barely any explanation. He has removed WP:RS sources that simply have moved elsewhere and could've been found with a simple search. When questioned, he has not been forthcoming. As I've detailed in the talk page, the issues with this series of edits are significant enough that they need reversion. Hemanthah (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding to note that there's multiple instances of his misrepresentations & citations-related disingenuity, as noted in this ongoing WP:AE case Hemanthah (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Alalch Emis has edited the page in the meantime, so reverting to a revision before Echo1Charlie's edits would also revert Alalch Emis's edits. If there are any specific edits you still want to be made (such as to restore specific paragraphs), please reopen this request. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)