Talk:Religious violence in India

This article, for the most part, is a complete hogwash of synthesis and original research. These conflicts have more to do with ethnicity and race than "religion" per se. Religion is often used as a cover for ethnicity in south asia, but this article seems to ignore that, perpetuating the orientalist myth that everything in South Asia is somehow related to religion.14.139.193.45 (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick note to say that the second sentence in the first paragraph is a little awkward:

Religious violence in India includes acts of violence by followers of one religious group against followers and institutions of another religious group, often in the form of rioting. Religions such as Zoroastrianism and Judaism have survived peacefully with Hindus for thousands of years.

The article ignores Zoroastrianism mentions Judaism only in relation to the Portuguese Inquisition. Why make general statements about Zoroastrianism and Judaism but not mention Hinduism or Islam? I think that second sentence should be removed. Perhaps it could be replaced with something like:

Religious violence in India, especially in recent times, has generally involved Hindus and Muslims, although incidents of violence have also involved Christians, Jews, and Sikhs.

Any thoughts? --Mvblair (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to go ahead and make that change for the reasons noted above. It just seems more relevant. Mvblair (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

  File:Sikh man surrounded 1984 pogroms.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Sikh man surrounded 1984 pogroms.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

diff Which part is copy-vio here and what is the source page from which it has been copied? diff

The sources

• Swell, Robert (2004). A Forgotten Empire: Vijayanagar (reprint ed.). Kessinger Publishing. p. 144. ISBN 1419101250. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
• Farooqui, Salma Ahmed. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: From Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. pp. 124–125. ISBN 8131732029.

They corroborate the content. Darkness Shines, tell me which part is the copy-vio and I will paraphrase. If somebody doesn't come up with a valid response I am going to put it back, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are going to restore a copyvio? And unsourced content? Interesting. Hindu culture during and after Muslim rule: survival and subsequent challenges 1994 p43 Originally from Sewells A Forgotten Empire who died in 1925, so the content is not PD. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

What is wrong with you? I explicitly mentioned that I will paraphrase. I even cited sources. Yet you interpret that as, "I am going to restore a copyvio and unsourced content"? Really, I am concerned about you, are you okay? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Which portion is COPY-VIO tell me I will paraphrase. Hindu culture during and after Muslim rule: survival and subsequent challenges ← what is this? Is it the source from which the content has been copied?? If yes, the page 43 is not an exact copy of the whole content. I ask you again, tell me which part is the copy-vio and what is the source of the copy-vio?? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Darkness Shines

I am going to give you another chance kindly tell me which portion is copy-vio and I will paraphrase. If you don't take part in the discussion then that means you don't have a valid rationale for deleting them. Kindly elaborate your rationale. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I gave you the book and page number above, go look at it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, don't delete other's comments, be careful.

Secondly, I checked the book and the page 43 it was not at all clear which portion was the violation. Which edition (you didn't specify)? The content you removed first was mostly inside quotation marks, it could not have constituted a copy-vio, I hope you know. Tell which portion outside of quote was a violation? If you don't I am going to restore that section and paraphrase what was outside the quotes. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• DS, you completely deleted three back to back sections without spontaneously specifying on the talk what is the copy-vio. That's disruptive. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The removed comment is a Nangparbat sock. I have told you where it is copied from, that really is all I can do. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You claimed where it was copied you didn't specify which portion of the content deleted is the copy-vio.
You deleted other sections also, with the same claim, for which you've given me nothing. What about them? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, how can something be "copyvio + unsourced"? If its a copyvio, that's the source!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The other sections had no sources, Dharmadhyaksha a copyvio has to be removed immediately, you cannot cite what it is copied from as a source, it is still a copyvio. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was commenting on your edit summary and not action. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just came across this [1] old set of edits by a POV vandal IP from 3 April, which apparently involved some rather blatant falsification of sources and referenced content. At least some of the vandalism (the complete reversal of the claim from the NYT source [2]) was only cleaned up today. Editors might want to check if there is anything else that has slipped through and needs to be fixed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The image caption has this as support -

"Who was responsible for the wanton destruction of the original brick stupa of Asoka and when precisely the great work of reconstruction was carried out is not known, but it seems probable that the author of the former was Pushyamitra, the first of the Sunga kings (184–148 BCE), who was notorious for his hostility to Buddhism, and that the restoration was affected by Agnimitra or his immediate successor." in John Marshall, A Guide to Sanchi, p. 38. Calcutta: Superintendent, Government Printing (1918).

Here is the problem:

1. I find no such support on page 38 or anywhere else in that 1918 book by John Marshall. (Therefore I have removed that alleged cite, and tagged cite requested)
2. After an exhaustive search, I find no scholarly peer reviewed journal article or book quoting John Marshall as having written that.
3. Independent of John Marshall, I found no scholarly peer reviewed source reaching the same or similar conclusion as the caption (about Sanchi, vandalism, religious violence and Pusyamitra Sunga).

The current image and caption challenges wiki policies WP:YESPOV and WP:V. Unless someone provides a reliable source in the coming weeks, I will remove that image and caption. AmyNorth (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Interested users are requested to look at the latest edit war in Popular Front of India. Thanks.--Cosmic  Emperor  10:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've copied some of the content and omitted the parts which I think is irrelevant or already mentioned in detail here. There might be still content salvageable there, see it here. Content related to Terrorist attacks, weakly sourced I've intentionally ignored.

• "Muslim and Hindu conflict": already covered, taken a few bits, remaining seems weakly sourced.
• "Muslim-Sikh conflict": covered
• "Hindu – Christian conflict" covered
• "Muslim-Christian conflict" Tipu-related covered
• "Muslim-Buddhist conflict" no, too weakly sourced ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Ugog. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Religious violence in India. 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/20080517102331/http://www.flonnet.com/fl1608/16081210.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl1608/16081210.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061206120548/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2000/ASIANOW/south/08/01/india.kashmir.massacre/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/08/01/india.kashmir.massacre/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 10:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Religious violence in India. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090214022741/http://www.kanglaonline.com:80/index.php?template=kshow&kid=8& to http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=kshow&kid=8&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 17:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maestro2016, this is also a pretty outdated source. Ferishta did write a lot of stuff, but it is taken with a large grain of salt by modern historians. For example, Eaton^[1] doesn't corroborate any of this. Pinging Utcursch for his input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, in this edit, you haven't said who has exaggerated. And you removed a page needed tag without supplying a page number. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. The reference cited (R. C. Majumdar, p. 481) mentions this as a quote from Firishta, a court historian employed by the Deccan Sultanates. It is not appropriate to present Firishta's statements as historical facts without corroboration from modern historians.

Joan-Pau Rubiés (2002)^[2], discussing this specific account of Firishta states (pp. 283-285): "It seems clear that Firishta was here setting the state for a considered discussion of why the holy war against the infidel should have been undertaken, and with such success. To begin with, there was a religious offence which was obviously intolerable... <description of Rama Raja's alleged atrocities> [...] We can conclude that for much of his much of his narrative Firishta is extremely unreliable, even though his account may have a factual basis, because from his Deccani perspective (which was also that of many of his sources) Vijayanagara represented only 'the other', whose role was to fall victim to the success of Muslim Sultan."

Several other authors have also described Firishta's claims as inaccurate. For example, see P. Sree Rama Sarma (1975):^[3] "Recounting the effects of allied advance into Ahmednagar Ferishta observed, "the infidels of Bijanagar who for many years had been wishing for such an opportunity, left no cruelty unpracticed. They insulted the honour of Musalman women, destroyed mosques and did not respect the sacred Qur'an." Apart from the prejudiced and exaggerated accounts to which Ferishta was accustomed [...] It is unthinkable that in the presence of the three Muslim soverigns in a State governed by another Muslim, the Hindu soldiers and their ruler would have been permitted to lay their hands on mosques and chaste women and humiliate the Muslim population in the Deccan [...]".

utcursch | talk 02:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks very much. I was wondering if this was still an unsolved problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Interesting find. But shouldn't Sarma's explanation be mentioned in the article? Maestro2016 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Quoting a holocaust denier like Audrey Truschke doesn't add credibility. When it comes to Aurangzeb, J Sarkar is the authority.49.207.61.24 (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware of J. Sarkar ever claiming a "holocaust" either, if that's what you're implying. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maestro2016 it has been told to you already that whatever you are adding is not relevant to the article because those sources are nothing about religious violence. Maddison and Colin have not discussed religious violence. Sambhaji's armies had killed 20,000 people regardless of their religion, such massacres took place often in 1200s to 1800s, not all of them can be added here. Information on Durant is accurately attributed to him, and it is relevant because and he is not stating something that has been disputed. Geunineart (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sambhaji was executed specifically because of anti-Muslim violence, as stated in the cited source. As for Durant, that is a colonial-era source from 1935. Here is what User:Utcursch had previously told me regarding the use of colonial-era sources: Please have a look at WP:HISTRH. Colonial-era history textbooks are obsolete: you should avoid using them as sources, wherever newer scholarly work is available. Several modern books cover the topic of Maratha-era atrocities: please use them as references instead. Quotes from British civil servants like V. A. Smith about the predecessors of the British have no place in Wikipedia articles, unless referenced with commentary in a modern scholarly work. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

That is not what source reads, you are doing your own research here. It only says that Sambhaji was executed by a panel of ulema and also "his companion were hacked to death and the pieces thrown to the dogs". That has nothing to do with this article though. Why you are trying to put trivial incidents that have to do nothing with the religious violence? Durant is a respected and reliable source and still usable, you should be happy that he is attributed with his opinion if anything. Capitals00 (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maestro2016 you are not understanding or deliberately ignoring the type of information that is being provided, you also don't have a good understanding of the sources that you are using, stop creating a WP:POINT. I just looked at above sections it really seems that you should stop editing this article because of you care more about POV pushing than editing in a collaborative environment. Geunineart (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, the Sambhaji source states that he was executed for "having slain and captured good Muslims", specifically referring to violence against Muslims. And secondly, and more importantly, Will Durant is a colonial-era historian. Vincent Arthur Smith was also a respected historian from that era, from a respected publisher like Oxford University Press, yet @Utcursch: strongly advised me not to use colonial-era textbooks. Yet you are arguing that an exception should be made for Will Durant, another colonial-era historian, which would be double-standards. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

So because a kangaroo court sentenced him while committing atrocities themselves we should treat it as religious violence from Sambhaji and that you have to dedicate a particular section for him.. That's WP:POVPUSHING. Historian has to be relevant. Lots of modern scholars cite Will Durant when they are discussing Muslim histories in India.[3][4][5][6] Why you are not agreeing to cite him? Geunineart (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The source does not refer to it as a "kangaroo court", but that is your own WP:POVPUSHING bias speaking there. As for Durant, if there are modern historians that reference him for something, then reference those modern historians, not Durant himself. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

First the edits like "Will Durant claimed that",[7] were introduced and then "Alain Danielou claims that" was introduced along with removal of Will Durant as a whole.[8] Though Will Durant is really not making a claim that "is uninteresting to scholars" or "is it weighty enough to include in the encyclopaedia" per WP:HISTRS. Also why Caste system in India[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_violence_in_India&diff=815874637&oldid=815872491 was added? It is irrelevant. Capitals00 (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

See the section WP:HISTRS#What is "recent" scholarship in history?, which advises against using older sources and advises to use recent scholarship. As I said above, if there are modern historians saying similar things to Durant, then cite those modern historians, not Durant himself. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

That is why I had pointed you modern scholars, if they feel acceptable to cite Durant, so you should. Geunineart (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

According to what Utcursch told me above, a colonial-era textbook should only be "referenced with commentary in a modern scholarly work". And according to WP:HISTRS#What is "recent" scholarship in history?, "new historiographical models come into use. They are usually added to old models, but sometimes older models are rejected or abandoned." Colonial-era textbooks are a reflection of outdated historiographical models. Durant needs to be subject to interpretation and scrutiny by modern historians, therefore cite the modern historians who agree or disagree with his points, not Durant directly. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am not particularly in favor of Durant here, I am just finding it uneasy that why it is being removed eventually, you can't really find someone who disagrees with Durant. Geunineart (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Will Durant#Durant criticism for an explanation of why his historical methodology is outdated. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I ask Joshua Jonathan to stop outright removals of my content. All of it is well-sourced.

I have only added views of reliable scholars. Dasas are clearly presented as a godless people by Rig Veda with a different way of life and religion, a reason whoch antagonized the Indo-Aryans and also used to call for their destruction.

If other authors have different view, then their views should be represented as well. I have made it clear that these statements are of the scholars. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you realize that your edit removed 53 kilobytes of text? Did you read Joshua Jonathan's edit summary? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Try Dasa or Vedic period; better at place there, maybe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Must be a mistake, I was only trying to undo Joshua. Don't know how so much content got removed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

This page has never meant to be about Ancient-, medieval, or early-modern India. Its lead reflects that choice. Yet the usual POV promoters have stuffed the page with pre-modern descriptions whose existence cannot be adequately verified, whose sources are old and unreliable, and whose raison d'etre sometimes seems to be nothing more than ruffling the feathers of others. In any case, the expressions, "religious violence," "violence in the name of religion," "ethnic cleansing," "genocide," usually presuppose a modern sensibility. In the pre-modern worlds there was never need for dehumanization before or denial after such forms of violence. In the coming days, as and when I find time, I will be removing most of this material, and leaving a short history section in place. That is the scope of this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Should articles not follow organic growth and limit themselves to the walls erected by the original creators? Rioter 1 (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Valid point, but what does organic growth mean? What are its constraints, its relation to reliable sources, (which by a large margin use the expression "religious violence in India" to mean modern forms of violence based in religion), and undue weight (not to mention fringe ideas)? What tertiary sources (i.e. other reliable encyclopedias, for example, or internationally well-regarded undergraduate textbooks) mention the pre-modern material in the same proportion as presented here? In other words, you are correct in pointing out the error of my post in basing the argument in original intent, but the original intent, it turns out, is based in due weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please don't strawman me. I was specificially objecting to your assertion that 'This page has never meant to be about Ancient-, medieval, or early-modern India. Its lead reflects that choice'. There are innumerable articles on pre and ancient history which are wiki gold standards in reliability and authenticity. Why should religious bigotry be any different? Rioter 1 (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Straw man is two words not one, a noun not a transitive verb. When I take out the undue- and unreliable material, you may present the puff of gold standards that might have blown in through the cracks of ill-fitting sources. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In Delhi's Hauz Qazi , the clash over Parking row between a person of Hindu and Muslim community, led to an 100 year old Durga temple being attacked and vandalized by a group of people from Muslim Community.

Read more at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/hauz-qazi-tense-after-communal-clashes/articleshow/70031895.cms https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/delhi-temple-attack-how-a-parking-scuffle-led-to-communal-tension-in-hauz-qazi-1560545-2019-07-02

Please add the content under section Modern India -> Anti-Hindu violence Bharathi Shekar (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: Please write exactly what should be added. Other editors may of course use your sources to expand the article if they wish, but that is not how edit requests are used. --Trialpears (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Maratha raids and plunders in Bengal, while atrocious and devastating, do not constitute religious violence. Request deletion of this section. Sdgmtl (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sdgmtl, Please check the reference for that content. What does it say? Walrus Ji (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agree. Their raids were devastating on the entire population. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The term of "religious violence" is quite inapplicable for premodern societies. I don't know how the sections on Ancient India and Medieval India came into existence.

That being said, the used sources (and assertions) are bogus. See Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus#Medieval persecution by Muslim rulers - Issues raised by TrangaBellam for more details and consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

There were 3/4 sections in this article, which were not discussed over that talk page. If any person have issues, I will be happy to explain. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article jumps from Ancient India to Colonial era. I'd like to have some knowledge on what happened between these two periods too. 2405:201:A403:E042:C41D:9DC3:4ECE:1021 (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

  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. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article jumps from Ancient India to Colonial era. I'd like to have knowledge on what happened in between these eras since there's a gap of over 1500 yrs. Varenyaraj23 (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

  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. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

• Chattalpalli Durga mandap at Deganga.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

This section needs more information since it contains some misleading information. Eg. there is no information about the number of Hindus killed, figures about population. Moreover this is full of story of debate. To have a consensus or best understanding of the subject number of different things happened should be involved. Otherwise the Wikipedia article will not serve the purpose of education. To maintain the purpose of education, I have decided to add more information against what are said here. If anyone has objections please reply here. Let's make a consensus.

The District Magistrate stated that reliable information had been received about 180 forced conversions of Hindus and the actual total may run into thousands.^[1] Roland E. Miller estimates forced conversions as in the range of 200 and 2500.^[2] In the aftermath of this ethnic cleansing, the Suddhi Movement was created by the Arya Samaj. They converted over 2,000 Hindus who had been forcibly converted to Islam by the Mappilas. Sumit Sarkar in Modern India quotes an Arya Samaj source that claimed about 600 Hindus were killed and 2,500 forcibly converted during the rebellion.^[3] Variamkunnath Kunjahammad Haji claimed to have killed the alleged British agents and spies responsible for the forced conversion of Hindus to Mohammadanism and killing others.^[4][5]

References

1. ^ Telegram No. 687, dated 8-11-1921 in G. Tottenham (ed.), The Malabar Rebellion 1921-1920. Chennai. 1922. p. 173.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
2. ^ Roland E. Miller, Mappila Muslims of Kerala: A Study in Islamic Trends. Chennai. 1992. p. 148.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference indianexpress.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ "7 Dec 1921, Page 10 - Detroit Free Press at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2021-12-25.
5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Clipped From The Baltimore Sun was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Neutralhappy (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This needs to be a high-level summary based on what the WP:HISTRS say. There is no need for grungy detail. Also, there is too much talk of "forced conversions", which are not serious violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your suggestion. But I did not intend to copy and paste the above paragraph Neutralhappy (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to propose the content you prefer to see. If you are asking for an advance "consensus" without even telling us what content you are talking about, it doesn't make sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please consider to replace the pseudohistory with the following :

Malabar rebellion, part of the Indian independence movement,^[1] Khilafat movement^[2] and non-cooperation movement,^[3] by Muslims of Malabar having a legacy of 4 centuries of resistance to the colonialism^[4][5] and a tradition of Mappila outbreaks directed against Jenmi tyranny^[6] saw its beginning in the British government arresting, and torturing, Muslims of Malabar for several months for false charges^[7] followed by a firing at the Mappilas in Thirurangadi on 20 August 1921 which caused the rebellion.^[8] These arrests, and brutality, against Muslims began after Muslims of Ernad and Hindus in Thrissur unitedly conducted a victory procession.^[9] The victory procession was preceded by a march on 2 March 1921 by Ernad Mappilas in response to, the British loyalists' loyality procession in Thrissur in an attempt against the Indian independence movement while this loyality procession causing violence against mosques, Muslim and lower caste Hindu houses and their shops.^[10] When the rebellion helmed by Variyankunnath Kunjahammad Haji began to spread the British and certain of their supporters left.^[11][12]

Thousands of innocent Muslims including women and children who were hiding in the forests, hills and uninhabited houses were massacred.^[13] The British government army butchered hundreds of Muslim women and children.^[14] The British government forces raped^[15] Muslim women and shot Muslims which caused the death of lower caste Hindus also since some of such Hindus used to shave their head like Mappilas then.^[16][17] The British government burnt Muslim and Hindu houses.^[18] Almost all houses were looted or plundered.^[19] The Muslim refugees were confined to the rebel areas while the Hindus were allowed to come out forcing Muslims to suffer poverty and hunger besides no access to relief work.^[20][21] The indiscriminate massacre of Muslims by the British government forces led Mappila rebels to surrender.^[22][23]

Several unreliable^[24] reports of forced conversion of Hindus by the Muslim rebels thus ranging from none^[25] (or 3 or 180 or 900) to 2500 or more for refusing to accept Islam,^[26][27] were spread (while it was propagated that it was a Hindu-Muslim riot as part of divide and rule policy of the British government)^[28] to justify the cruelty by the colonial government meted out against the Muslims.^[25] It is reported that British loyalists (including such Mappilas) were involved in the looting which Variyankunnath Kunjahammad Haji took action against.^[29] Haji said British loyalists, who were involved in forced conversion of Hindus (to Islam), were vandals^[30] and British agents and spies worked pretending as rebels as part of plot by the British against the rebels.^[31][32] All of such alleged forced conversions took place weeks after the rebellion started only, after British forces began to come,^[33] which was after the two incidents —martial law declared by the British government and the surrender of Ali Musliyar on 31 August 1921. Until then no forced conversion took place.^[34][35][36] Hindu Jenmis, and their mostly Nair kanakars or karyasthans helped the British government to capture the Mappillas. This caused rebels to turn against such sections.^[37] 10000–12000 people were killed and 10000 went missing; while the British government says 2337 rebels were killed and 1652 wounded.^[38] The Arya Samaj says around 600^[39] Hindus were killed and 2500 forcibly converted during the rebellion.^[40] Hindu refugees including upper section returned to their native regions after six or eight or one year after the rebellion (started^[41]).^[42] All relief camps were closed after a certain period.^[43]

Population of Muslims compared to total population of Malabar district had increased by around one percent each decade from 1802 to 1911 while it increased by around two percent during the period 1911-1921 while around 60 percent of Muslims were concentrated in just three taluks (in Calicut taluk also the rebellion took place^[44])— Ernad, Walluvanad and Ponnani where rebellion in 1921 took place^[45] — out of ten^[46] taluks of Malabar district.^[47] Similarly the Muslim population of Kerala had higher growth rate than that of Hindus in the periods 1991-2001 and 2001-2011.^[48] It is said there is no demographic change to suggest forced conversions of Hindus.^[49] Neutralhappy (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Karandeep Singh 7777777 (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I want to add some important information, which is currently missing in this page. Karandeep Singh 7777777 (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  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. @Karandeep Singh 7777777: edit requests are intended to ask for a specific change to be made, not to request access to the article itself. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India#/media/File:2012_Riots_incidence_rates_per_100000_map_for_India,_its_States_and_Union_Territories.svg shows the riots from 2012 without any justification of why 2012 was chosen. It does not represent the typical incidence rate in India. I recommend replacing it with an average of a few decades. Or make one image per decade. Those will be informative. This 2012 map conveys no information and is a clear case of cherry-picking. Better to remove it if it can't be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiajoe (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Anti hindu attack: Kanhaiya Lal Teli was a Hindu tailor who was decapitated and murdered by two Muslim assailants on 28 June 2022 in Udaipur, in the Indian state of Rajasthan. The assiliants captured the attack on camera and circulated the video online TheRushikeshPatil (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

• 2012 Riots incidence rates per 100000 map for India, its States and Union Territories.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

presentation 45.125.119.68 (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The topic above "Top heavy with ancient, medieval, and early modern material" claims "This page has never meant to be about Ancient-, medieval, or early-modern India. ... In any case, the expressions, "religious violence," "violence in the name of religion," "ethnic cleansing," "genocide," usually presuppose a modern sensibility. And in topic "Removal of medieval section" it claims "The term of 'religious violence' is quite inapplicable for premodern societies."

Significantly, these statements don't deny there was religious violence, but say it cannot be judged by modern standards. Well, the same could be said about slavery, colonialism, inequality and other topics.

Contrary to opinions above, the page needs more pre-modern material to properly represent its title. Or its title should be changed to "Modern Religious Violence in India".

Its often asserted in Wikipedia and elsewhere that India, Hinduism and Buddhism are historically tolerant, unlike Christians, Muslims and Europeans. From Freedom of Religion "Many scholars and intellectuals believe that India's predominant religion, Hinduism, has long been a most tolerant religion." and quotes the Dalai Lama: "Religious tolerance is inherent in Indian tradition".

Similarly Freedom_of_religion_in_India has nothing but tolerance until arrival of the Muslims.

This sentence "Many historians argue that religious violence in independent India is a legacy of the policy of divide and rule pursued by the British colonial authorities" implies there was little religious violence in India before the Modern period. The lack of earlier material tacitly supports this belief.

European Christians are harshly criticized for persecution of non-Christians in "early modern times" in the reconquest of Spain and Spanish America. Medieval Christians are harshly criticized for massacring heretics and Jews and Muslims. Why should India be exempt for criticism?

I plan on adding some material to fill this void. I will put older religious violence in its historical and cultural perspective. Ttulinsky (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply