Talk:Hindutva/Archive 1

I think this sentence requires an apologia:

It does not, however, seem possible to realistically assert that this movement evokes significant sympathy in the majority of the Hindu population of the world, as its proponents claim, or to identify it with the Hindu religion itself.

I would rather avoid including such a dubious sentence... I think this could be avoided by improving the final clause of the first sentence, to amend it away from "promoting Hinduism" to something more like "promoting a national identity based on Hinduism", since this is the essential character of Hindutva and the reason why we wouldn't say it can be identified with the Hindu religion itself.

The first clause seems flat-out indefensible to me. I would be interested in seeing some sort of survey, etc... considering that the BJP is controlling the Center right now, I think we can fairly say that Hindutva garners considerable support. Graft 03:58 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Response by the author of the sentence:

The second clause is necessary, to be clear that the article does not intend to insinuate an identification of the two terms. It is also necessitated by the fact that the terms are dangerously close enough to be misidentified.

The BJP does *not* control the center right now, in the naive sense in which that remark may be interpreted. The Union Government of India is ruled by a *coalition* consisting of multiple parties, with atleast 5 of them being major regional (federationist) parties, with the BJP being the major partner. This does not mean that the BJP and its Hindutva policies, by itself, holds an absolute majority among the electorate. Many consituents of the NDA, as the coalition is called, are policy wise directly opposed to the Hindutva plank (including some major dravidian parties, and some so called socialist parties). The approved policy of the Union government is what has come to be called the "common minimum programme", which the other coalition partners can agree with, and which avoids the Hindutva theses (much to the disconcert of the ideological wing of the BJP, the RSS).

It is easy to verify that this is the case by doing a study of the political compromises that the BJP has been forced to make, in many instances induced by some of the constituent NDA parties, and also the distribution of seats in the state legislatures, which, in a federally organised structure like the Indian Polity, reveals significant information.

Hindutva does garner considerable support, strong enough to make the BJP a major political force, but to consider it the majority view in an absolute sense (especially of the worldwide hindu population), does not seem defensible at all.

As for the proposed amendment of the first sentence, it should be more like "promoting Hinduism as the sole basis for the National Identity of India"

There are objections to this as well, since Hinduism as such never advocates the exclusion of "foreign" religions and the like. Neither was this borne out in mainstream Hindu religious practice in India, before the advent of the saffronites.

It is *absolutely* important to emphasise that there is ambiguity in associating the tenets of Hindutva, with what is commonly accepted as the Hindu philosophy, and that, as is the fact, most Hindus (as opposed to those who may be regarded as flaming Marxists for example) regard this as controversial (though they are not necessarily vocal about it).

End of response.

Most Christians would probably regard Mormon beliefs as controversial, but this is no reason for us to highlight the minority position of Mormonism with respect to Christianity at large. The only reason to do otherwise is to demonise the subject, which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Followers of Hindutva consider themselves Hindus and draw inspiration from Hindu ideas, make use of Hindu philosophy in their teaching and organisation, and make that their first loyalty. Though there are unarguably elements of Hindutva that are not rooted in Hindu philosophy, this is no reason to create such a sharp schism. You are attempting to politicize this article (and others) by making such edits. Please take a moment to consider your intent before editing further. Graft 00:35, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

=====

The article as it stands has several errors.

Bharat is the official name of India in the Constitution. What does that have to do with Hindutva?

Because the Constitution does not define that land to include Pakistan or "Gandhar", and a Hindutva stalwart would not use "India" at all. I'm willing to drop "Bharat", but "Akhand Bharat" is definitely a Hindutva-leaning term.

Which documents claim that the objective of Hindutva is to create a Hindu state in India?

Oh... I have "rationale for a Hindu State" in my living room. Also it comes up periodically in Organizer.

The way it reads now is a parody by its enemies but I think that tone is not appropriate for a wikipedia article.

Others who edited this have definitely been its enemies; I myself have been active in Hindutva circles for 14 years (though I do not subscribe to the ideology) and do not consider myself its enemy simply because so many of my friends and family are supporters and activists.

Where is the connection between Hindutva and astrology? Most people consider...? Who are these "most people"?

There's a definite link to be made here, though it could be done better than it is in the text - there was the whole tiff about the "saffronisation" of education and Murli Manohar Joshi's efforts to include astrology departments at Indian universities.

Why is Hindutva anti-foreigner? There are Western Hindus who support it and who, in turn, are embraced by Indian Hidutvavadis.

Nationality is not important to Hindutva, as Savarkar defined it and as most of its followers believe - only your acknowledgement and feeling that Bharat is the land of your origin and your culture. Hindutva would not consider NRIs to be "foreign", but it -WOULD- consider, say, white tourists to be foreign. I think this is a minor piece of bigotry that crops up in the less-ideological fringes, though, and isn't a core belief of the movement.

Where is the "official" Hindutva justification for the Staines murder?

There is of course no "official" Hindutva justification, because there is no "official" Hindutva voice. But it was editorialized about in the manner described in Organizer, the RSS mouthpiece. Considering that RSS later condemned the Gujarat violence (while VHP did not) I think this is a telling move on their part.

To prevent an edit war, I think we should hash out these points here before continuing to revert each other's changes... Graft 16:17, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

i reverted from 61.11.60.221's extensive changes - Dear 61.11.60.221: if you wish to make corrections please first read about NPOV. Boud 11:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I didn't discuss before making this change, but it was minor. Revert, discuss, whatever:

Hindutva ("hinduness", a word coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his 1920 book of the same name) is a movement that, contrary to popular belief, is not so much based on the Hindu religion but on advocating the promotion of Hindu community in a nationalist setting.

And Graft:

"Followers of Hindutva consider themselves Hindus and draw inspiration from Hindu ideas, make use of Hindu philosophy in their teaching and organisation, and make that their first loyalty."

That's not true. Hinduism's major tenets include Ahimsa, and that is not a Jain concept in that it came out of Jainism. It's to be found first in the Upanishads (CHandogya) and plenty of Hindu philosophy. Class differentiation and understanding of an identity based on the BODY (race) and LAND (India) is contrary to ALL Hindu philosophy. This is about Hindu communalism, not Hindu religion. While one must emphasize their religious base, the fact that they try to group Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains (and even many Muslims, by arguing that they're converted and his in reality Hindus!) is evidence enough that religious philosophy factors little into their actions and is much more of a banner. Just because they wave Rama pictures around means nothing, since Rama idealizes dharma in self-sacrifice and duty... he makes sure that his enemy, Ravana, is given an appropriate burial, and even speaks to his honor and the need for a Hero's cremation for a noble man. THis is not reconcilable with quoted Hindutva propaganda on the article page that speaks about mutiliating Muslims and developing race conscious-unity.

Lsstly, if this sort of logic stands, we can start highlighting Nazism as Christians and mentioning Hitler among prominent Christian viewpoints since half of his whole reasoning stems from Christian beliefs that Christ was crucified and was the son of God, with debated but in the Catholic church long-standing ideas that 'the Jews killed him' (even though that's silly since Christ sacrificed himself voluntarily for the sins of Man). So, let's reevaluate this page. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:40, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Err... okay, a bit late on the response, but... Hindutva obviously DOES make use of Hindu concepts. I've sat through umpteen baudhiks on the Upanishads, varnashrama, the Ramayana, etc. There's plenty of argument to be made about ahimsa - the most common one is drawn directly from the Gita, where Krishna is explicitly urging Arjuna to physical violence as the morally correct course. It would be impossible to argue this is not a Hindu document; Hindutvadis make use of this text in arguing in favor of violent traditions. Similarly the recently-popularized "Angry Rama" image, of the ordinarily mellow Rama standing angry and ready to burn the oceans with his missiles if it does not give passage to his army. It might be possible to argue that Hindutva doesn't match YOUR ideals of Hinduism, but my text is correct: its followers consider themselves Hindu, are inspired by Hindu concepts (though others as well, Golwalkar's political philosophy is decidedly not Hindu) and make use of Hindu philosophy and texts in their rhetoric and education. Graft 01:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry LordSurya, but I need to second the above by Graft. Sam Spade 03:48, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I actually am stating something slightly different. I'm not arguing that they don't draw from Hindu books and beliefs. Obviously they do. But you don't address my Nazism issue. Half of Hitler's ire against Jews is justified by his Christian beliefs about Christ. We wouldn't, however, equivocate his implicit belief in Christ's divinity and the Jews' crucifying him, "forgive them Father for they know not what they do" with Christianity. We would say they based their beliefs on them but molded them, or interpreted them, according to their own ideas. What I was asking for was not that we artificially try to pretend that Hindutva has 'nothing' to do with Hinduism, but rather that they are radicals with whom most Hindus take exception in regards to their policies and understandings, as you rightly pointed out, of a fierce warrior Ram bereft of any balancing factor (i.e. Ma Sita). We do not equivocate in differentiating Muslim fundamentalists, terrorists, Mujahideens in general, from the Islamic religion, certainly in articles of academic or politically correct tenors. In the same way, people differentiate between Fundamentalists, white supremacist Christians in the Bible Belt from Christianity in general, not sundering the two, but making explicit the differences. In the same way, we should make clear the massive extremism and often strange manipulations of Hindu symbols, ideas, figures, etc. for Hindutva. That is what I'm getting at. --LordSuryaofShropshire 13:48, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'd make precisely those equivocations, actually. I don't think it's at all neutral to say, for example, that the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be somehow differentiated from the rest of the body of Islam, and that their interpretation of Islam is somehow inauthentic because it is radical. This is not a neutral point of view, and neither would it be to say the same for Hindutva. I don't think that Hindutva is any more abnormal or deviant in its interpretations than some other sects (for example, followers of Sai Baba), and I really DON'T think that it takes that much to pull Hinduism into the particular contortions that Hindutva requires, because it's not always the most progressive of religions.

In any case, I think it would not be NPOV to strongly differentiate them from other Hindus. There is no Hindu canon for them to deviate from, after all. Graft 15:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your understanding of Hinduism is severely flawed. One of its defining characteristics is that it is a highly progressive religion, and it showed high philosophical latitudes, such as its understanding that all religions and paths ultimately lead to the same Truth (which is more than can be said for any other faith). You can find completely different doctrines of divinity and social systems with the same small group of philosophers, things which are branded heretical in other faiths. Hinduism is far more progressive than other religions. Also, its lack of dictated dogma and its malleability, with numerous streams embracing different texts, makes it the most progressive. Hindu society is notably intractable, but the same can be said for most other religious societies and numerous examples of contrary barbarism can be cited.

It doesn't really take much to pull any religion into the particular contortions fundamentalism requires; it has been done with Christianity, Islam, etc. Most Hindus would agree that Hindutva is radical and less in line with general Hindu beliefs since the hailing of non-violence, of vegetarianism, of tolerance for other faiths and a lack of differentiation in race is a hallmark of much of Hindu philosophy. Gandhi, for instance, is considered to be more emblematic of Hinduism than Savarkar. Hindutva is deviant since most Hindu movements through the centuries have a decidedly peaceable bent. We are obviously admitting that Hindutva draws inspiration from Hindu philosophy and iconography, interprets it in accord with their own ideas. But to assert that there is a general Hindu outlook, we must take into account the majority viewpoint, and it is strongly non-violent.

I'll give one major instance of where Hindutva is patently non-Hindu. Hindu religion is based on the Astika, or orthodox, Vedic philosophies, those which admit an ultimate creative Divinity (not necessarily personal, but always a 'source') and the fountainhead of the Vedas. Thus, Hindus are people who believe in the Indian systems of Vedanta, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa, Bhakti movements, Agama Tantra streams, etc. and admit the Vedas as divine spiritual authority. The Nastika, or heterodox schools, are the Buddhists and Jains (and one defunct school) that deny the Vedas. Hinduism is essential a classical development of the Vedic religion, and thus Buddhists, who are quasi-atheist, and Jains, who also deny the Vedas, are not Hindu. However, Hindutva attempts to create a much stronger communal bent to Hinduness, and seeks to group Indian religions into Hinduism, whereas Hinduism is clearly at odds with several aspects of Bauddha and Jain Dharma. Hindutva also implies a belief that Christianity and Islam are somehow inferior, or less Indian, and breeds an idea in its followers that these are false. This is not majority and scriptural Hindu belief about the paths of sages and religions. Thus, Hindutva clearly departs from the Hindu religion in major ways with its creedal and racial grouping.

Anyway, I think the article as it stands does well to mark the difference between the Hindu religion and Hindutvadis, and so I'm not complaining about its current form. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:13, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

"I'd make precisely those equivocations, actually. I don't think it's at all neutral to say, for example, that the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be somehow differentiated from the rest of the body of Islam, and that their interpretation of Islam is somehow inauthentic because it is radical"

Just a quick response. No one's trying to invalidate these movements as 'wrong' views of Islam. Frankly, no one on earth has the authority or knowledge to arbitrate on the 'correctness' of most views on specific religions and say that they are 100% correct. However, one can assert that certain groups show a radical and often extreme set of beliefs and practices derived from mainstream texts/religion that are often at odds with the preonderance of the practicing populations. There is a reason that words like 'fundamentalism' (which as departed from a neutral meaning of going by 'fundamentals' to bigotry against any other religion) and 'extremism' are used in reference to organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, the Muslim Brotherhood and Mujahideen groups around the world, Hindutva, even with certain Zionist movements in Israel. No one sets militant up as separate philosophical movements within religoin: they are referred to as societal outgrowths, not religious movements. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:29, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I don't disagree with most of this, actually. As to Hinduism being progressive, I did not say it wasn't, I only said that it isn't -always- progressive. I suppose I am not separating Hinduism as religion from Hindu society; I think this is a dichotomy that is difficult to draw in general (e.g., see Max Weber, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"). Anyhow, I consider varnashrama to be extremely regressive, but I would definitely consider this to be a component of Hinduism. For example, Valmiki Ramayana emphasizes the extreme difficulty of changing one's caste status - Vishwamitra must undergo severe penances in order to secure the status of Brahman. In general Hinduism seems to have no problem with authoritarian power structures (emphasizing the importance of the King appreciating his duty as a ruler, rather than the injustice of monarchist systems.) I could go on at length. I do not mean to claim that it is less progressive than other religious systems, and I agree that it is indeed one of the most tolerant. But it has an incredibly rich and varied tradition, and it is entirely possible to draw regressive elements from it and remain safely within the fold of Hinduism, as I think Hindutva has successfully done.

As to the present day, I think the bonds of Hinduism are definitely chafing the Hindutvadis, and so that connection is beginning to be warped, but it is still quite strong. As an example I have occassionally heard the argument made that "ekam sat, viprah bahuda vadanti" (the truth is one, the wise call it by many names) only refers to the traditions descended from the Vedas, and does not include, say, Christianity, because clearly some religions will not point to the truth - i.e., Hindutva attempts to reinterpret, because it still feels ties to those texts, but it cannot reject them because it acknowledges their authority. Attempts to include Jains and Sikhs within the Hindu fold are obviously flawed, but there is good argument to be made that they belong within the same Vedic family of traditions. I hate to trot it out, since it's so overplayed, but the Charavaka nastika school is often counted as a Hindu tradition even though it seems wholly contradictory to everything else Hindus have conceived. Including the far more similar Jain and Buddhist philosophies seems much more tame in comparison.

I don't think Hindutva is that deviant. India has a long history, and Hindus have plenty of history of similarly ugly and violent movements. In fact, I think the peaceful traditions are mostly a product of the reformations (Jainism and Buddhism) rather than a result of the traditional Hindu religion, with its conquering Indra, warrior princes and ashwamedha yagyas.

I do think the article could do better to emphasize non-Hindu traditions underpinning Hindutva. It's been a long time since I read "Bunch of Thoughts", but Guru Golwalkar is definitely not uniquely inspired by Hindu political philosophy, and Hindu nationalism is clearly a modern trend based on Fascism, and I think the text ought to emphasize this (in a clean and well-outlined manner, though, rather than via rhetorical jibes). Graft 18:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While I appreciate your academic openness, I still disagree with some of your readings. Varnashrama, for instance, was not regressive when first espoused. Ashrama is a very peacable and moral system of life which is actually a lot more spiritually inclined than some other more doctrinaire readings for life, such as the Catholic 'no sex, or at worst marry' or the BUddhist 'everyone's a monk'. Instead, it lays a system of the student, the householder, the retiree, and the spiritual quester. It's rather natural and progressive. And noone's ever spoken about is as controversial. As for varna, it was originally intended as a classification of characteristics, such as peaceableness, temperance, or lack thereof, as well as occupation. Would you disagree that to be a Christian priest, or a monk, people would mostly hope for a very stringent morality, lots of sacrifices (eschewing business careers, often celibate, all of which are easily penances). It is commonly understood that Varna, or caste, was actually a nomenclature, morphed into a very mobile system, and then concretized into dogma and social feudalism. By the way, as for Kshatriyas and the 'warrior' religion, most of the gods and Indra were based on protection of cattle. Sure there were references to defeating enemies, but the Kshatriya's code was not to conquer and defeat, but to defend the kingdom, to protect the priests of the village and the defenseless. You make it sound like the Vedic religion was a warrior group, which it wasn't. Even proponents of the ingress of Aryans agree that there was no such thing as an Invasion and more likely it was a peaceable migration. Lastly, wars are natural in human history, so citing a Hindu king in war is more about his kingdom than specific Vedic or post-Vedic calls to conquer or defeat, which don't really exist. We don't call Christianity a warrior-religion because of its image of Christ the warrior during the Apocalypse.

By the way, you're wrong about peaceful reform. Jainism and Buddhism both presupposed the well-established texts and cultures of the great Upanishads, mystic and practical Vedic commentary texts of the Hindu tradition, which first preached 'ahimsa', the uselessness of ritual, the benefit of meditation and contemplation, karma, the bliss of surrender of ego, etc. They rebelled against violence, rebelled against societal feudalism, spoke to develop union with God unhindered by choking traditions. Peaceful reform was the legacy of Hindus, of Vedic religion! So reform movements did not start with Jainism and Buddhism, but mystic Vedic Hinduism in the Upanishads (and Aranyakas).

Jains, BUddhists and later Vedantists all drew from and broke away from each other in different manners to cement different faith systems. Also, Patanjali's Yoga system, which is a Hindu stream based mostly on the Upanishads and Samkhya, with arguable influences of Buddhism, is reformed and completely non-violent. Also, you're completely ignoring the HUGE and largely-unparalleled slew of Bhakti movements. These divine love religious streams of Hinduism are famed for their call for peace, non-violence, wiping away of caste distinction, and love of God supreme. Hindu agamas and tantra streams were all about equality and breakdown of unjust societal strictures.

Also, I don't know who you've read that trots out Charvaka as Hindu, because it was the most rabidly ANTI-HINDU of all three Nastika branches! It mocked the Vedas as worthless scraps of sacerdotalism, called the Hindu sages and rishis baboons and oafs, and decried meditation and conventional moral systems as self-deluding! Charvaka is much less like Hinduism than Jainism and Buddhism, which at least admit much of Hindu philosophy, ethics and meditational release from Samsara.

I think you're attempting to legitimize more warrior-like religious elements in Hinduism whereas they form the exception, rather than the rule. There is no militant movement in Hinduism that is accepted as a philosophy or religion. There are tracts and messages within about duty and selfless action which have been 'interpreted' as allowing for violence in extreme situations, but no more than Christian missionary ideas or Islamic jihad have resulted in slaughter of innocents in the name of religion. Your logic implies that any movement that claims to draw from religion is suddenly a valid part of the religion as opposed to its social/cultural history. In that case, as I mentioned above, Nazism is a wing of Christians since much of its philosophy against the Jews is completely based on Christian beliefs and community. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:35, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Also, in response to your idea that Vedic Hinduism was a warrior-religion, where's your history? There has never been a conquest movement by Hindus, whereas there HAs been by Christians (Crusades, much of European colonialism/imperialism) and Muslims (the spread of Islam into Spain, into India through the Mughals, the jiziya tax against non-Hindus). When has the Hindu religion spurred conquest? Also, the Ekam Sat contortion by Hindutva you mentioned only proves my point: they are iconoclastic in their definitions of Hinduism and the ramification of the faith and identity, not a regular part of its history. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:38, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

VV

VV, I don't know of anyone who accuses Hindutva of being anti-Semitic, especially considering its recent and enthusiastic alliance with Israel, how is this defensible? Also, that "virtually impossible" line (which I think I wrote) is definitely editorial and unnecessary. Graft 01:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nazism

It has been wrongfully stated twice above that Nazism is a form of christianity. This is profoundly untrue. While they may have avoided openly proclaiming their largely anti-christian beliefs, their actually religious roots are in the mystical societies of Germanenorden and thule, and their symbol was the swastika, not the cusifix. You might like to keep in mind the Nazi philosophy regarding the aryan master race, something far more akin to a interpretation of caste than to anything to be found within christianity. In truth, antisemitism was probably the solitary christian characteristic of the nazi party. Sam Spade 19:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade: I never stated that Nazism was a part of Christianity! I was using its reliance on belief in major aspects of Christianity as a counter-example to what I believe are wrong statements about Hindutva being a regular part of Hinduism! I was trying to demonstrate that representing Hindutva as a stream of Hinduism was fallacious by using an example of this (I believe) flimsy logic and applying it to Christianity and Nazism! My posts, if read at all in context, demonstrate this. "Your logic implies that any movement that claims to draw from religion is suddenly a valid part of the religion as opposed to its social/cultural history. In that case, as I mentioned above, Nazism is a wing of Christians since much of its philosophy against the Jews is completely based on Christian beliefs and community." Note that I am clearly not of that viewpoint, because if I were, by my statements, I would be agreeing that Hindutva makes up a theological/philosophical/ethical branch of modern-day Hinduism!!! " if this sort of logic stands, we can start highlighting Nazism as Christians and mentioning Hitler among prominent Christian viewpoints since half of his whole reasoning stems from Christian beliefs

NOTE MY TWO STATEMENTS: "your logic implies... in that case" and "if this sort of logic stands". I am most obviously using hypothetical extensions of the opposing viewpoint, with which I disagree, to disprove it as incorrect. My whole basis for mentioning Nazism is assume that in reality it CANNOT be placed under Christian religion, because i also feel that Hindutva CANNOT be placed under Hindu religion. I would hope my posts are read with more attention. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:28, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

I read what you wrote full well. When you suggest 'Hindutva is to Hinduism as Nazism is to Christianity' and I (and clearly others) see a clear link between Hindutva and Hinduism, and far, far less so between Nazi and Christian beliefs, your logic fails to sit well at all. Hindutva and its relationship with Hinduism are not comparable in this way with Nazism and Christianity, and I see the attempt to suggest such as an insult to both Hindutva and Christianity. Sam Spade 20:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you had read what I wrote, then you wouldn't have made such a ludicrous statement such as the one you made, that I called Nazism a branch of Christianity. I was framing an argument. The logic you use to connect Hindutva to Hinduism is equally applicable to Nazism and Christianity.

1) Hindutva defines its purpose on some Hindu ideas, using some scripture as support.

1a) Nazism uses the New Testament and later Christian theologists to fuel its crusade against Jews.

2) Hindutva involves a community that extends beyond Hindus, since it erroneously seeks to incorporate, quite against the grain of the Hindu religion, non-Hindu religions into its group, such as Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, thus creating a communal bigotry transcending the Hindu religion.

2a) Nazism involves a community that extends beyond Christians, since it erroneously seeks to view Christians as a white group based on Aryan theories and eugenics ideas of contemporary Europe, thus creating a communal bigotry against any non-white non-Christians (remember the Gypsies?) as well.

3) Most Hindus see Hindutva politics as an aberration of major Hindu ideas and iconography that at the very least is a minority viewpoint in the history of not only the religion but the culture. They see it as a political movement, not a part of the religion.

3) Most Christians see Nazi politics as an aberration of understandings of Christ and his relationship with the Jews that is at the very least a minority viewpoint in the history of not only the religion but Christian culture. But is it? Pogroms against Jews have been going on for centuries in Christian countries. Nazi attitudes have seeped into Christian Southern Bible-Belts. But Nazism is held to be completely different from the Christian religion.

You did not read my posts properly and I also see the logic used to imply Hindutva is integrally Hindu as illogical and embracing a double-standard, what with Hindutva's clearly non-Hindu approach to race, country, religious grouping and the fact that the majority of Hindus and all scholars make sure to separate it from religion and classify it as what it really is, a political movement. Hindutva is as much a part of religion as the Ku Klux Klan. The reason I raised Nazism is not because I believe it is Christian, but to show how ludicrous grouping of Hindutva with Hinduism is. You say, oh, Hindutva is MORE closely related to Hinduism and Nazism LESS closely related to Christianity. Logic implies that it encompasses degrees, and my point remains that Hindutva is NOT a part of the Hindu religion.--LordSuryaofShropshire 20:37, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

It would appear that since your mind already made up that Hindutva is not a legitimate expression of Hinduism, you are unable to concieve of the ramifications your statements make apon people with a divergent set of premises. I reccomend you avoid editing this page. Sam Spade 21:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade: your condescending and rather 'ad hominem' remarks are quite appalling. Think of what you have said, and how it reflects on you. You are so blinded by your own preconceived and concretized ideas that Hindutva is a legitimate expression of Hinduism that you are unable to conceive of the ramifications your statements make upon people with a divergent set of premises. You are so close-minded that instead of debating the issues I raised, such as those regarding the Ku Klux Klan and its parallel relationship to Christianity, that you make an insulting remark about my ability to help in an article. By your rationale, you, too, are not equipped to handle editing this page. In fact, anyone with an opinion is not a good candidate to debate, discuss and edit any article on any subject. Unlike you, I think you should consider what your astounding statement resounds of, which is basically an attempt to shut-up people with whom you disagree because evidently someone who presents a coherent argument with valid premises is actually challenging your own established beliefs. And to think you were lecturing me on NPOV a while ago. --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:36, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)