This article iswritten inIndian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour,travelled,centre,analysed,defence) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofIndia-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofconservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDiscrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofHuman rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofHinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
This topic containscontroversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may bedisputed.Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and conciseedit summary.
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates tothe region ofSouth Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
Strong support: Hindutva being a far-right ideology is extensively supported byreliable sources, from academic and scholarly ones,[1][2][3][4] to media sources.[5][6] Furthermore, multiple sources already within the article call Hindutva far-right.[7][8] Calling it right-wing seems like euphemism to whitewash an extremist and supremacist ideology.EarthDude (wannatalk?)08:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had previously classified it as far-right in the article but my edit was reverted and I was asked to seek consensus. This is why I have opened this RfC.EarthDude (wannatalk?)14:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped Rfc header. A simple edit-and-revert does not qualify for an Rfc as there is no discussion about this on the Talk page, much less a long, deadlocked conversation; seeWP:RFCBEFORE. You can carry on discussing the question in this section, and if an Rfc is needed, it will become clear down the road, but not now.Mathglot (talk)16:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hindutva is certainly extremist and militant. But I think far-right is the most accurate term out of the three, and also the one supported by the most sources.EarthDude (wannatalk?)12:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. The OP has been pushing the "far-right" label on this page for a while, without regard to what the sources say. I have justdeleted acouple of these. The fact thatsome sources label it as such in passing doesn't mean that the balance of sources have done so. --Kautilya3 (talk)11:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 I don't think it's acceptable to change the article to remove mention of the far-right while this discussion is ongoing. Clearly, there is no consensus for that change as of yet.Theknightwho (talk)11:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable sources. This is exactly why Hindutva should be, very accurately, termed a far-right ideology.EarthDude (wannatalk?)11:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 You are more than experienced enough to know that it is inappropriate for you to remove make changes related to this while discussion is ongoing. Trying to justify it isn't a good idea.Theknightwho (talk)08:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to address those removals specifically, because I think this needs pointing out:
This one changed the description ofRashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh from"a far-right Hindutva paramilitary organisation" to"a paramilitary organisation", despite the fact that RSS is described as"an Indian far-right Hindutva volunteer paramilitary organisation" in the lede of its article. This is sourced.
This one changed the description ofBharatiya Jana Sangh from"a far-right Hindutva-based political party" to"a Hindu communalist political party", which left the sentence in a contradictory state, given that (in this context) "communalism" is to "community" merely what "nationalism" is to "nation":"He understood Hinduism as a nationality rather than a community but, realising that this is not the common understanding of the termHindu, he chose "Bharatiya" instead of "Hindu" to name the new party, which came to be called the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS or JS; often known as the Jan Sangh), aHindu communalist political party which acted as the political arm of the RSS."
Hacked to death? And how has that been done? Was it me reorganising the article to be more encyclopedic and more consistent with other ideology articles? Was it me adding reliably sourced information? None of these are "problems". You only believe that because they go against your beliefs and feelings.EarthDude (wannatalk?)12:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give me one example where I added a POV which was not reliably sourced. Every single change I have made has been according to sources. Again, you only care about this because the given facts in the article go against your feelings.EarthDude (wannatalk?)12:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long-settled page, with lots of experienced editors participating to ensureWP:NPOV. Adding wording changes willy nilly without even consulting sources is not the way to go. If you people want to write your own essays, please create blog sites for that purpose. --Kautilya3 (talk)12:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 I notice that you're still completely failing to address anything I'm actually saying. Repeatedly asserting you're correct without making an argument isn't persuasive. By contrast, I pointed out precisely what was wrong with your first edit, and you have completely ignored it. Your editing has all the hallmarks ofWP:POV.Theknightwho (talk)12:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are nowWP:edit warring. I referred toWP:V, which saysAll content must be verifiable.The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. --Kautilya3 (talk)20:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 No, it’s not edit-warring to stop you from making major changes to the article while this discussion is ongoing. Why won’t you respond to the substantive issue?Theknightwho (talk)23:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, it is you who edit warred. You keep bringing upWP:V but you have not even tried to explain what is notWP:V in the current version. You haven't even oone example. Ironically, the phrase fromWP:V that you quoted, the burden of verifiability lies with the editor who is adding or restoring material, which is you in this case.EarthDude (wannatalk?)01:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not me that needs respect. Your respect should be directed at Wikipedia, the sources, and the numerous editors that have created content before you by paying attention to them.WP:V is a black and white issue. Either the sources has your content or it doesn't. It doesn't need any "explanation". It is entirely obvious that you have never looked at the sources or even know what the sources are about. You just added your ownWP:OR and are expecting people to accept it. There is nothing respectful about it. --Kautilya3 (talk)07:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you utterly refuse to give even a single example of a violation ofWP:V orWP:OR throughout the entire article. You refuse to address the issues raised in regards to your reverts. You refuse to actually meaningfully discuss the matter at hand, about Hindutva being far-right, and instead your arguments amount to nothing more than a baseless "because I said so". You have given no sources which side with you, neither have you given any valid explanation. And then, to top it all off, you resort to disruptive reverts while the discussion is still going on.EarthDude (wannatalk?)13:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have been pushing the label because it is backed by a flood ofWP:RS. I could bring even more sources here than the ones I already have. You have no argument so you baselessly claim that the sources calling Hindutva far-right are just "some" or given in "passing mentions" (the latter is especially ridiculous, and goes to show you haven't even taken a single look at the sources I have provided. It is not simply "passing mentions"). If you could, can you provide multiplereliable sources that claim that Hindutva is NOT far-right?
Also, you cannot remove mentions of the term far-right while the discussion is still going on. Your reverts also seem weird. For instance, calling the RSS far-right is from a recent discussion where there was consensus to term it so, as per reliable sources. You have also reverted minor edits such as wikilink fixes, for no apparent reason.EarthDude (wannatalk?)11:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: Groups are usually militant, not ideologies. And there are not many so-called "Hindutva" groups that can be accurately labeled as such. I can think of only one: Abhinav Bharat. Even then, describing it as "far-right" or "militant" is disputed and not universally accepted in mainstream academia. It represents a fringe element within the broader Hindutva ideology.
It is therefore unwise to label an entire ideology, especially one you may know very little about, as militant. This is particularly important when the ideology in question is followed by a significant number of Hindus, along with many Jains and Buddhists. That much is evident, considering who currently holds political power for third consecutive term.
To call such an ideology "militant" is essentially to imply that a majority of Hindus are militants, something for which we have no evidence. In fact, there is ongoing debate among scholars about categorizing Hindutva as "far-right." So why are such terms sometimes used so casually? What we often rely on, as @Kautilya3 pointed out, are passing remarks from a few arguably biased sources. These sources rarely explain how or why Hindutva is categorized as "far-right."
Even Zionism, which has in recent years been associated with militant actions, is not typically described as "far-right" or "militant." It would therefore be problematic to label Hindutva that way without careful analysis, as it risks reflecting deep-rooted biases.
What we do see are personal prejudices and grievances held by some editors against the ideology. Some seem unable to rest until they equate Hindutva with Nazism or fascism. But in today’s mainstream political climate, being labeled "far-right" often reflects a charged discourse more than an objective classification.2409:40C1:4F:2FCA:A851:3DC:952C:E7E0 (talk)03:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources disagree with you. Framing Hindutva far-right is an objective classification from a flood of highly reliably, reputed, and neutral sources. You cannot simply frame reliable sources that oppose your viewpoints to be biased. That is a violation ofWP:SOAP from your end.
Furthermore, your argument makes no sense. How would framing an ideology far-right make all Hindus be framed far-right? Hindutva is not a way of life, it is a radical and extremist ideology, explicitly inspired by european fascism. Would calling Nazism far-right in the 1930s mean each and every single human of German descent was a far-right person? Of course not!EarthDude (wannatalk?)03:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That is not neutral, not balanced, does not include all sources, and certainly does not reflect an objective reality. Your version of reality does not become objective just because you believe it, and adding something to Wikipedia does not make it true.
You completely missed the point, and it seems you are unable to process what I wrote above, which was expected. I also noticed you recently pushed this onto the RSS page. That was quick and convenient. And now you are here. Quite motivated, it seems.
Anyway, this is not a vote. You can accuse me of bias, and I can say the same about you. It is pointless. Others are allowed to share their views, and I did just that. Now let others speak instead of trying to silence everyone who challenges your narrow and clearly motivated perspective. Reagrds,2409:40C1:4F:2FCA:A851:3DC:952C:E7E0 (talk)04:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between each and every and majority; You say, "How would framing an ideology as far-right make all Hindus be framed as far-right?" and compare it with modern Germans and Nazism. But is Hindutva a dead ideology? Isn’t the BJP aligned with Hindutva? Of course, the comparison to modern Germans is a false equivalence. You are clueless, so spare me.2409:40C1:4F:2FCA:A851:3DC:952C:E7E0 (talk)04:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear you have come here for purely ideological purposes. You have called all given reliable sources that go against your beliefs to be biased. You haven't even taken a look at even a single of the given sources, and so you falsely claim Hindutva being far-right is only given in passing mentions. Also, you misread my comment about Germany and Nazism. I clearly wrote "Would calling Nazism far-rightIN THE 1930s mean each and every single human of German descent was a far-right person?" Somehow you read that and thought of Modern Germany. Also, no. Even a majority of Hindus do not believe in Hindutva. It is a very specific far-right ideology, inspired by European fascism.
"Would calling Nazism far-right in the 1930s mean that every single person of German descent was a far-right person?" You do not even seem to understand the difference between a majority and every single individual. It is clear who is more motivated here.
Also, by "modern Germans," I obviously meant that just because their ancestors followed a far-right ideology, it does not make modern Germans far-right. I guess that was vague on my part and slightly out of context. I also wanted to imply that yes, the majority of Germans during that time period were definitely far-right. How can you even dispute that? Obviously not every individual, but certainly the majority or at least a very large number. That is not really disputable.
Hindutva is not a largely dead ideology like Nazism, which today exists only in small neo-Nazi pockets with no major political power or mainstream following. It does not matter whether the majority of Hindus believe in Hindutva or not. Most do not even know what it actually is.
But since you seem determined to label everything chosen or supported by the majority of Hindus as fascist or far-right, it risks implying, or rather, clearly does imply something more sinister.
And also, what has Hindutva done that is even remotely comparable to Nazism? That kind of comparison is just absurd. Anyway, I am done here. We are only going to keep accusing each other, and you do not seem very interested in nuance. You just rely on certain sources that you hold very dear and consider foundational to your worldview.
Your argument has gotten erratic. You are giving contradictory statements. First you erroneously say that framing Hindutva as far-right, would frame the views of a majority of Hindus far-right. And then when I say most Hindus dont support Hindutva, you flip and say the same. Again, you don't seem to understand. Hindutva is not Hinduism. Hindutva is not even related to the core principles and practices of Hinduism. It is an extremist and militant far-right ideology, as supported byWP:RS. Again, when met with facts, you resort to denial, claiming reliable sources to have been cherrypicked or biased. But yes, this does seem to be going nowhere between us. Cheers.EarthDude (wannatalk?)05:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hindutva is not Hinduism." Okay, fair enough. But you seem determined to define Hindutva strictly as a militant far-right ideology, especially when you even label mainstream political parties that way.
All I'm saying is that the meaning of Hindutva is broad and understood differently by different people. Don't reduce it solely to "militant" and "far-right," particularly when you're using it even to label political parties and random individuals with some opinion you dont like.
How many actual Hindu militant groups are there? That’s just a fringe section of the Hindutva ideology. But you don’t seem to get that. You appear more focused on promoting your own viewpoint.
Well, I'm just an IP with an opinion. I’ve shared it, and I agree this conversation isn’t going anywhere. You proposed an RFC, so let others share their reasoning and let the elders decide!
Comment - Making a comment here as flawedRfC consensus has been cited in the discussion above and below by EarthDude fromTalk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (which the nominator [EarthDude] themselves closed in policy violation:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incorrect RfC closures, this among numerous other incorrect applications of policy). There is an incorrect understanding of RfC andconsensus policy by the user whereby the thought is that any local consensus allows the user to make sweeping changes at a plethora of articles. This obviously isn't the case and is true especially for anycontentious topics andBLPs.
In this article itself [among others] I had noted that the user waslabeling things in a manner which were not supported by sources or had any sort of consensus. The first that springs to mind is the unverifiable and apparentlyWP:OR labelling ofBharatiya Jana Sangh as "far-right". The claim that the cited sources say this is obviously false asshown below. But let us look at what reliable encyclopedic sources have to say:
traces its roots to the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS; Indian People’s Association), which was established in 1951 as the political wing of the pro-Hindu group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS; “National Volunteers Corps”) by Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. The BJS advocated the rebuilding of India in accordance with Hindu culture and called
BHARATIYA JANA SANGH (BDS; Indian People's Union) party in India of conservative andreligious-nationalistic sense. It was founded in 1951 (the first chairman was S. P. Mukherjee, whose personal secretary wasA. B. Vajpayee). BDS aimed to rebuild societal relations in India on the basis of the revival of traditions, Indian culture, interpreted exclusively as Hindu culture, and the appeal to the politics and cultural heritage ofantiquity and theearly Middle Ages i.e. the pre-Islamic period in thehistory of India.
Coming to the issue at hand about Hindutva, let us again look at encyclopedic sources:
Hindutva, right-wingethno-nationalist political ideology that defines the cultural identity of India in terms of Hinduism and desires to make India an overtly Hindunation-state. The term Hindutva was first defined in the early 1920s by Indian nationalist activist and politicianVinayak Damodar Savarkar. Today it is most closely associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (Hindi/English: Indian People’s Party; BJP), one of the main political parties in India, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (Hindi: National Volunteer Organization; RSS), a nonpolitical Hindu nationalist paramilitary organization. Hindutva supporters, or Hindutvavadis, claim to advocate for India’s significant Hindu-majority population—as of 2011 India was 79.8 percent Hindu, 14.2 percent Muslim, and the rest a mix of Christians, Sikhs, and others—and seek to redefine the idea ofsecularism enshrined in theIndian constitution in terms of Hindu rights. Hindutva as an ideology must be understood as distinct from Hinduism as a religion—not all adherents of Hinduism subscribe to Hindutva—and Savarkar’s original definition asserts Hindutva as an ethnic category and eschews a specific religious connotation. In current practice the ideology tends to be strongly pro-Hindu and staunchlyanti-Muslim. However, supporters often define Hindutva in purely cultural terms as a “way of life.”
The BJP represents the political face of India’s Hindutva ideology, defined amorphously as Hinducultural nationalism, or “the essence of being Hindu.” Hindutva ideology demands the assertion of India’s national identity as a Hindu state, but it defines Hinduism as acultural construct rather than a religious one. As such, it demands that India’s minorities—numbering about 150 million Muslims and several million Christians, among others— reconfigure their beliefs, espousing Hindu values and considering themselves part of an overarching Hindu culture. Such an ideology poses a profound threat to minorities, and to thesocial cohesion of the nation. The belief that India’s authentic culture lies in Hinduism has bred an “antiforeign” outlook, a definition that encompasses both the Muslims and Christians of India. Since the 1980s, the BJP has gone from being a marginal political player, catering to the aspirations of a small upper caste Hindu elite, to a party that enjoys widespread popular recognition and the support of a growing segment of Indians, both at home and among India’s wealthy and influential diaspora population.
Hindutva, which means Hindu-ness, is a right-wing Indian ideology that aims to create a nationalistic Hindu nation, aHindu Rashtra, based on orthodox Hindu tradition. Hindutva was formulated by the philosopher V. D. Savarkar (1883-1962) in the book Who is a Hindu? from 1923, where he compares what he considers to be the original Indian population with the Jews. He thus emphasizes the ethnic cohesion among indigenous Indians, defined as e.g. Hindus and Jains, as opposed to outside religions such as Islam and Christianity. Adherents of Hindutva are therefore in opposition to the Indian secular tradition, which is expressed in the Indian constitution, for example. Hindutva is the cornerstone ofHindu nationalism, which has its clearest expression in the revivalist movement RSS and its political party BJP.
Den Store Danske Encyklopædi on Hindu nationalism [translated] ([6]):
Hindu nationalism is a militantpolitical-ideological current in India with roots in the 20th century Hindu reform movements innorthern India and in the movement for the spread ofmodern Hindi. The goal of Hindu nationalism is to transform multicultural India into a Hindu nation, a Hindu Rashtra, through a cultural and political mobilization of the Hindu majority, and it is characterized by militant discipline and rabid opposition to Muslim organizations and manifestations in India.
Hindu nationalism is a collective term for various movements that are characterized by a desire to make Hinduism India's cultural identity. The Hindu nationalists want Hindu norms to characterize social life. Hindu nationalism is anti-Muslim. In India, according to the constitution, there is a complete separation between state and religion. Secularreligious pluralism has been the dominant ideology, but the Hindu nationalists have wanted to change this and want to make India a Hindu state. In the 1980s and 1990s,fundamentalism was used to denote some Hindu groups and their ideology, but the term has been replaced by Hindu nationalism in the academic literature.
It is not in dispute whether certain RS describe the ideology as extremist, fundamentist, fascist etc. or whether it should find mention in the body. What is in dispute is whether the "far-right" descriptive ispredominant enough for aWP:DUE inclusion in the lede para, description etc. that the user seeks [we are not talking about the body nor the rest of the lede] (as a corollary a reading ofDonald Trump andDonald Trump and fascism may also be made). The answer for that is an obvious no, any survey of historical and socio-political sources on India [as shown here] will tell one that.
Then there is this comment by the user above: "Yes, I have been pushing the label because it is backed by a flood of WP:RS." Entirely unjustifiable perWP:LABEL andWP:PUSH. And there is a repeated violation ofWikipedia:Assume good faith in comments above by the user as well [bordering onpersonal attacks] such as: "Again, you only care about this because the given facts in the article go against your feelings."
The far-right labelling for RSS-related articles has been added by a single editor in a recent sweep, some on the face of it quite BLPVIO. Multiple discussion have been had over how to characterize the organization (and its suborgs), Hindutva andHindu nationalism at all of these pages over the years and there is no consensus for the far-right labelling. ... A broad application as such should definitely not be had through drive-by edits, especially for bios when it is not directly attested for the given BLP. And, while I shouldn't have to state this, my views are directly on the opposite spectrum of these extreme organizations. I personally would apply that label to these groups and am someone who has edited and engaged in discussion at the pages of these far-right groups in India and beyond, so I know the issues of obfuscation in this space. But we always have to be vary of WP:LABELs on BLPs and otherwise if sources aren't unanimous or entirely absent for the label adduced as it relates to the article subject."
The user has attempted major changes at multiple core India-related articles in what appear to beWP:RGW attempts rather than reflecting encyclopedic enwiki tenets. These are articles which have seen multiple discussions and effected consensus by different veteran editors and their ledes have beenWP:STABLE as such for years. For a relatively new user to then attempt sweeping changes from flawed understandings of sources and policies is not something I can endorse and indeed directly oppose.Gotitbro (talk)08:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What other encyclopedias say about the politician leanings of Hindutva is completely irrelevant, as they are tertiary sources (Considering how long you have been editing, you not knowing such a basic Wikipedia sourcing concept is surprising). What we see in secondary sources, as shown time and time again, is that the term far-right is used enough to warrantWP:V andWP:DUE inclusion in the lead of the article. Furthermore, just because an article has beenWP:STABLE for a number of years, does not mean it can not be changed asWP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and here it has shown so, as many editors have come forward in support of the change in terminology as perWP:RELIABLESOURCES. What is stated in reliable sources does not count asWP:LABEL, nor does it count as a form ofWP:RGW and what is seen here is a significant misunderstanding of core Wikipedia policies from your end.EarthDude (wannatalk?)08:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely how long I have been here that I know how the articles you have recently become engaged in excrutiatingly came to be.
Where exactly do you get the notion that other encyclopedias are irrelevant just because they are tertiary? Go ahead and readWP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. A preference is there for secondary sources but tertiary RS have always been allowed and are highly relevant for determining basic things such as the lede changes you seek here (just to further illustrate this, it should be remembered that a vast collection of articles from Encyclopedia Britannica formed the basis of enwiki itself). What dictionaries, encyclopedias etc. say is definitely of basic determinative concern to us, after allWP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a general reference work. Specialist reference works (such as the Encyclopedia of India cited above) also do not fall into that ambit. Feel free to clear any further doubts at theWP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
I can also list secondary RS, apart from the reference works already given above, which actually specialize in the subject (Hindu nationalism, Hindutva etc.) that directly go against the framing you seek. Quote-searching for stuff is obviously going to turn up mentions in disparate sources butWikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion; and DUE hasn't actually been satisfied.
What is covered in certain RS does not mean it isn't aWP:Contentious label. For someone who has dubiously admitted to "pushing" labels on BLPs and elsewhere (itself disruptive/RGW) and more often than not incorrectly applied and cited enwiki P&G without knowing their precedential workings (including here itself) should not really beWP:WIKILAWYERING others on how they operate.Gotitbro (talk)13:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and no one is denying that. However, once again, as I have said again and again, the contents of other encyclopedias dont mean much in discussions such as these. They are irrelevant to this discussion specifically, as it involves interpreative work by secondary sources.WP:V andWP:DUE have absolutely been satisfied, due to the sheer flood of reliable sources terming Hindutva far-right. For instance, evenChristophe Jaffrelot, possibly the most reputed scholar when it comes to Indology, has called Hindutva far-right.EarthDude (wannatalk?)12:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WhatWP:3PARTY sources, including of-course encyclopedias, have to say about any subject is highly relevant to us and has always been. To say that they are not interpreting things and are irrelevant is unfounded and not based on any policy. Especially so when we need to determine the lede. I understand the proclivity felt by certain editors to applyWP:LABELs at certain topics. But that shouldn't be based on mere quote source dumps.
What you propose is indeed one aspect of the ideology but isn't wholistic to justify a singular label as such. Jaffrelot, whom you cite (a political scientist and not an Indologist), is someone I am deeply familiar with. He was the one who for instance established that while sharing certain features Hindutva is not fascism and predates it with roots in local ethno-religious nationalist movements. Jaffrelot has shared his concerns about the entanglements of the far-right and Hindutva but nowhere does he entirely wholly charactize it as such and nor does this appear in his work.Walter K. Andersen andThomas Blom Hansen need also be read to better understand what we are dealing with here.
*Hindu nationalism as a broader term encompasses pre-Savarkar movements of theHindu Mahasabha,Bal Gangadhar Tilak etc. and can even encompass such figures as Gandhi. The term also refers to religious movements outside India. In scholarship, contemporary Hindu nationalism in India is synonymous with Hindutva.Gotitbro (talk)16:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is highly inaccurate. Sure, Hindutva originates in Hindu nationalist thought, but it is not the same and the difference is important to note. Just as Christian nationalism and Christian fundamentalism may be used interchangeably, so can Hindu nationalism and Hindu fundamentalism. But Hindutva is an extremely specific socio-political ideology originating in 1922, and inspired by the rise of European fascism at the time.Aryanism cannot be equated withNazism.Christian nationalism cannot be equated withTrumpism.Jewish nationalism cannot be equated withZionism. The reason the two terms, Hindu nationalism and Hindutva, are sometimes used interchangeably is because Hindutva is, in today's day and age, the most dominant form of Hindu nationalism, so the majority of Hindu nationalism today is based upon Hindutva. However, if you read and study the subject further, you will see there have existed other forms of Hindu nationalism that are not Hindutva, for instance,Bangabhumi was a Hindu nationalist separatist organisation in Bangladesh but it was not Hindutva. This is supported by reliable scholarship.
Secondly, Wikipedia is NOT the same as other encyclopedias. As an example, theNazi Party is not called far-right inEncyclopædia Britannica, but it is called so in the party's Wikipedia article. Perhaps we could also add the term fascist, as that is supported by reliable and scholarly sources used across the article.EarthDude (wannatalk?)14:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Ghasiya, Piyush; Ahnert, Georg; Sasahara, Kazutoshi (26 September 2023). "Identifying Themes of Right-Wing Extremism in Hindutva Discourse on Twitter".Social Media + Society.doi:10.1177/20563051231199457.
EarthDude, have you read theWP:NPOV policy, which is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia? If so, can you explain how you applied the policy to the issues you are discussing here and elsewhere regarding the Hindutva topics? --Kautilya3 (talk)14:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support to the inclusion of "far-right" in Hindutva lead.I propose that the Hindutva lead should acknowledge that the ideology is widely described as far-right by scholars and major media, while also noting that some sources prefer alternative terms.
Supporting sources: (1) Encyclopædia Britannica describes Hindutva as a “right-wing ethnonationalist political ideology”.[1] (2) A 2025 study of Hindutva discourse on Twitter identifies it as displaying “all features of right-wing extremism”.[2][3] (3) Another peer-reviewed article explicitly frames Hindutva as “a form of right-wing extremism”.[4][5][6][7]The Guardian describes Hindutva as linked to “right-wing extremism and fascism”.[8]VICE calls it a “pernicious brand of right-wing extremism”.[9]At the same time, some scholars frame Hindutva more broadly as religious nationalism, extreme conservatism, or cultural revivalism.[10][11][12][13]
Suggested neutral wording for the lead: Hindutva (lit. "Hinduness") is a form of Hindu nationalist ideology in India. It is widely described by scholars and media as a right-wing to far-right ethnonationalist movement, with some characterizing it as a form of right-wing extremism or noting similarities to fascist ideologies. Other scholars frame it more broadly as religious nationalism, extreme conservatism, or cultural revivalism.
This phrasing reflects the breadth of reliable sources, avoids WP:LABEL misuse by attributing contentious terms, and ensures due weight. Also, this would align with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV by presenting the range of reliable views without overstating any single one. iAshwinDeshmukhDeshmukh.3851talk13:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think simply changing the opening sentence is enough. This is mainly because your phrasing concept is already used in the second paragraph of the lead, so it might get repetitive for readers. I think we should change the opening sentence from "Hindutva (/hɪnˈdʊtvə/; lit. 'Hindu-ness') is a political ideology encompassing the cultural justification of Hindu nationalism and the belief in establishing Hindu hegemony within India." to Hindutva (/hɪnˈdʊtvə/; lit. 'Hindu-ness') is an Indian Hindu nationalist ideology, widely described by scholars as being right-wing to far-right on the political spectrum. We could then keep how it was formulated by Savarkar in 1922 and then move all the content from para 2 there. Thoughts?EarthDude (wannatalk?)12:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up, EarthDude.
I agree that succinct lead is a good idea, and your proposed sentence does reflect the prevailing scholarly characterizations. However, I’d recommend we retain the fuller version or at least a middle ground, for a few reasons:
Neutrality & Attribution: Since “far-right” is a contentious descriptor, per WP:LABEL, we should attribute the view rather than state it in Wikipedia’s voice - especially in the first sentence of the article.
Due Weight: While many scholars describe Hindutva as far-right or right-wing extremist, others use alternative frames like religious nationalism or cultural revivalism. The fuller lead reflects that diversity of sourcing, which is important for WP:DUE.
Avoiding Redundancy: I understand your concern about repeating phrasing already in paragraph 2. However, redundancy is less of an issue when the lead is summarizing key perspectives. It’s better to be clear and slightly repetitive than to risk underrepresenting one side of scholarly opinion in the lead sentence.
That said, how about this version:
Hindutva (/hɪnˈdʊtvə/; lit. "Hinduness") is an Indian Hindu nationalist ideology, widely described by scholars and media as a right-wing to far-right ethnonationalist movement. Some sources characterize it as a form of right-wing extremism or note similarities to fascism, while others describe it more broadly as religious nationalism or cultural revivalism. OR
Hindutva (/hɪnˈdʊtvə/; lit. "Hinduness") is an Indian Hindu nationalist ideology widely described as right-wing to far-right ethnonationalism. Some scholars label it right-wing extremism or liken it to fascism, while others view it as religious nationalism, cultural revivalism, or extreme conservatism.
I oppose this change. "Right wing" is almost universally applied here: I see less evidence for "far right", and stylistically the first sentence ought to be for factual material we don't need to attribute inline. What is the problem with what we have?Vanamonde93 (talk)15:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it doesnt cover what reliable sources say. Reliable sources call it far-right though many also call it right-wing. It would be much more accurate to term it right-wing to far-right.EarthDude (wannatalk?)16:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care for the right-wing vs far-right dispute. But regardless of which of those labels we use, it's the RSS's Hindu nationalism that is covered most prominently in sources about them, with a position on the ideological spectrum being secondary at best. I don't think reader understanding is in any way helped by this change, nor is it in keeping withWP:DUE. If you just want to substitute "far-right" for "right wing", then propose that specifically (in the interest of transparency, I will likely oppose such a change, but I would need to review sources first).Vanamonde93 (talk)23:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the article reinstated byTheknightwhohere has three mentions of "far-right".
Mention 1:
Discussions between the two led to Hedgewar founding theRashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, lit. "National Volunteer Society"), afar-right Hindutvaparamilitary organisation with this mission, in September of that year. This organisation swiftly expanded to become the foremost Hindu nationalist organisation.[14]
This was added byEarthDude inthis edit (12 July 2025) with the edit summaryNone of these are WP:LABELS. They are all according to the given sources. Some of these are just basic grammar fixes. The previous version said "a[n][ organisation".
Apparently this tweak was reverted and he reinstated itagain with the edit summary:Rss desc update as per consensus. Removed some redundant and unnecessary phrasing.
The source cited is a volume editedChristophe Jaffrelot, a well-known scholar on Hindutva, with excerpts from various primary sources. Within his own commentary, there is only one mention fo "right wing" in the book, and no mention of "far-right". The mention of of "right wing" says:
[Murli Manohar Joshi] was appointed president of the BJP in 1991 but served only one term because he was too representative of theparty’s right wing at a time when the Sangh Parivar was trying to project a more moderate face in order to make allies. (p. 271))
This is about BJP rather than RSS, and it talks about the "party's right wing", implying that the whole party was not "right wing".
EarthDude is apparently referring to some other discussion where he apparently obtained "consensus" on some other page, through cherry-picked sources to push a POV. But here is an authoritative source on the subject which isnot certifying the POV. Why is this source is being ignored? What makes those other sources that he had dug up more authentic or authoritative?
Mention 2:
[Mookerjee] understood Hinduism as a nationality rather than a community but, realising that this is not the common understanding of the termHindu, he chose "Bharatiya" instead of "Hindu" to name the new party, which came to be called theBharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS or JS; often known as the Jan Sangh), a far-right Hindutva-based political party which acted as the political arm of the RSS.[15]
Added byEarthDude inthis edit (12 July 2025) with the edit summaryNone of these are WP:LABELS. They are all according to the given sources. Some of these are just basic grammar fixes.
The cited source has none of the description "far-right Hindutva-based political party". It is pureWP:OR.
Mention 3:
The violence has also been condoned by the BJP politicians and used as an electoral strategy to garner support from the far-right Hindu population.[16][17]
Neither of the cited sources says anything remotely like "far-right Hindu population". The first source in fact makes the point that even if the population doesn't buy it, the BJP has nothing to offer than Hindutva, which is its core ideology.
@Kautilya3 Why are you making personal attacks against me when all I did was ensure the article was not changed in relation to the point of discussion? We are already discussing this in the thread above, so it is entierly unclear what the purpose of opening a new thread is, especially when you seek to pin it on me.Theknightwho (talk)11:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re also ignoring the fact that I already pointed out these statements are supported by the sources on the articles linked to; if you want to repeat those sources here then feel free to do that, but to claim they’re original research is, at best, silly.Theknightwho (talk)12:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it contains, the better. Please be bold and add content summarizing accepted knowledge, but be particularly cautious about removing sourced content. Information in Wikipedia must be verifiable and cannot be original research. Show that content is verifiable by citing reliable sources. Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content,unsourced content may be challenged and removed. To avoid such challenges, the best practice is to provide an inline citation when adding content (see: WP:Citing sources for instructions on how to do this, or ask for help at the Help desk). (WP:EDITING)
You’re also ignoring the fact that I already pointed out these statements are supported by the sources on the articles linked to; if you want to repeat those sources here then feel free to do that, but to claim they’re original research is, at best, silly.
This is just getting ridiculous at this point. Statements such as calling the RSS far right are taken directly from their respective articles, where a plethora ofWP:RS are given. When my edit was first reverted here, I was asked to seek consensus. And so I did, with the specific rfc being one of the clearest examples ofWP:SNOW there is, in support of the change. That is indeed consensus, and at this point, if you are resorting to directly questioning such widespread consensus, then the issue is your editorial behavior, not the content at hand. For instance, in the articleDictator, images of Hitler and Stalin are included with no sources. Because they are already provided in their respective articles. If there is already consensus and sourcing in the original articles, then we dont need to source them further in each and every single article that references the subject.EarthDude (wannatalk?)14:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have quoted verbatim from the policy, and it is crystal clear. I don't know why you people are arguing. Please provide citations or accept the deletion of the disputed content. --Kautilya3 (talk)15:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 If you are requesting sources, the appropriate template is{{citation needed}}. It is not{{failed verification}} - please do not mislead users by misusing templates like this.Theknightwho (talk)10:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Policy comment (Not a comment on the content being discussed above) Content needs to be cited in each article in which it appears (fromWP:VWhen material that needs an inline citation appears in two or more articles, an inline citation is needed in each). Roughly speaking, the intent is not only that all content should be from a reliable source, but also that the reader should be able to verify content directly when reading the article. Kautilya3 is correct that, if you're using content from another article that is sourced, you must also include the source.RegentsPark(comment)22:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the lede description for RSS has any consensus is simply false (based on an policy vio closure by the nominator [EarthDude] themselves). Not that any local consensus there would affect what we say in other articles.
As shown above the claim by the same user that the present sources in the article describe BJS as far-right is also false. I trawled through the internet and cannot find a single RS directly describing the party as such.Gotitbro (talk)10:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added sources for the given claims which you so desperately want. Furthermore, this whole sourcing argument is in bad faith, considering the far-right sources are so easily found at their respective articles.EarthDude (wannatalk?)03:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
I believe the use of the word "separatist" is incorrect, as that does not fundamentally form under the definition of Hindutva. Savarkar defined a Hindu and Hindutva, in his essay "Hindutva, who is a Hindu?" as regarding India as one's motherland, and to practice its culture. Thus, by this definition, Hindutva cannot be separatist as the core ideology of Hindutva believes in the unity of India.Pdesai001 (talk)18:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is highly contentious, but also there is not a consensus on Hinduvta being a variant of fascism. The article itself doesn't describe it as fascist but as having "fascistic" traits, and some of the sources cited reject the fascist label, such as Chetan Bhatt and Parita Mukta'sHindutva in the West: Mapping the Antinomies of Diaspora Nationalism.2800:200:ED80:1A0:BCD6:813C:1A8B:6BB8 (talk)15:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to discuss the recent reversion of my edits with the edit summary "Unnecessary whitewashing." This does not explain which parts of my edits were problematic or why. PerWP:EDITSUM andWP:BRD, substantial reversions should be accompanied by a clear rationale so we can work toward consensus. Could you please clarify your concerns so we can address them point-by-point? My intent was to improveneutrality(WP:NPOV) and ensuredue weight (WP:DUE) in how scholarly perspectives are presented. I believe the current version has several neutrality issues that need to be addressed.
1. Lead wording – loaded terminology
The current lead uses the term "Hindu hegemony" to describe Hindutva’s goals.Hegemony is aloaded term with negative connotations, implying oppressive dominance. PerWP:WORDS, value-laden language shouldonly be used with attribution to a reliable source. My edit replaced this with "Hindu political and cultural dominance", which is more descriptive and neutral. It still conveys the same meaning but avoids editorializing.
Example:
"Islamic hegemony" vs. "Islamic political dominance" — the latter is factual, the former implies judgment.
2. Balance of scholarly perspectives
My edits addedcritical and defensive scholarly viewpoints, citing sources such as Christophe Jaffrelot, Achin Vanaik, Chetan Bhatt, Mukta, and Thomas Hansen. These scholars representdifferent sides of the academic debate. The current versionomits the counter-arguments, leaving only harsh critiques (e.g., direct comparisons to Nazism and fascism). This violates WP:DUE by givingundue weight to a single interpretation.
3. Section framing – overemphasis on Nazism
The article previously had a subsection titled "Hindutva and Nazism." This narrow framingsensationalizes the comparison, making it seem like Hindutva is inherently equivalent to Nazism. Many modern scholars treat Hindutva as adistinct ideological phenomenon with certain similarities to, but also differences from, European fascism. My editmerged this into a broader section, "Comparisons with Fascism", so both the historical comparisons and later clarifications by RSS leaders could be covered in a balanced way.
4. Clarity on India’s demographics
The current lead wording could imply that India isnot already a Hindu-majority country, which is misleading. My version clarified the distinction between India’sexisting demographics and Hindutva’spolitical/cultural agenda.
Proposal
I propose restoring my edits (or a compromise version) to align withWP:NPOV andWP:DUE. If there are specific concerns about certain sources or phrasing, I’m happy to discuss them point by point so we can reach consensus. Please share your thoughts so we can collaborate on a version that accurately reflects the breadth of reliable scholarship.
I understand your concerns, but tools like GPTZero are not without problems. Such tools flag well written text as AI even when it isn’t. As perWP:ASPERSIONS, such accusations need to be backed up by strong justification, and having just a tool for detection is not sufficient. I take full responsibility for the thinking behind my post. Could you specify which parts of my edits you disagreed with? This way, we can go over them together and hopefully agree on something.Marvelcanon1 (talk)13:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please providereliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Day Creature (talk)20:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]