Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Archive 7

RSS Membership

Copied from User talk:Vanamonde93

Hi, I changed the RSS membership to 40 million with the guardian source instead of 7 million, because I checked the academic source at Google books and discovered actually no where it sates RSS has "7 million member" rather it states it has "several million member". Now word several million could be 5, 20, or 100 million. But, in Guarding source it clearly states that RSS has 40 million members. Nevertheless if you have any doubt regarding this issue pls go thorough the book once, as of now let guarding source be there. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Kkm010, if that's what the book says, fine. I am just wary of using a media source for a figure like this one, because an academic is so much more likely to be thorough on the subject, whereas a newspaper researcher may easily get their figures from, well, Wikipedia, for one. So I'll try and find an academic source. Till then, the guardian can stay. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Kkm010 I am not sure why this discussion is happening here. It belongs on the article talk page. I updated the membership figure from 5 million to 7 million here [2]. Chetan Bhatt wrote 2.5-5 million in 2001, and he wrote 7 million in 2013. I am pretty sure it is a reliable figure. Google Books is not showing that particular page at this time, but that is not a reason to distrust the source. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, kautiliya3, I check two to three times, but i didn't find the word "7 or seven million" is mentioned however, it do states it has "several million", I also downloaded that book from torrent and went through it, no where the book states RSS has 7 million members. If you have any doubt about my word pls kindly go though the book once. I'm damn sure the figure has not been mentioned specifically. The Guardian source is far more specific it clearly states its membership, however, I do acknowledge academic source is far better than a media source. since we don't have an academic source where rss membership has been specifically stated, it is better to keep guardian source. In the mean time we must find an academic source and go through the book/journal at atleast once before putting it as source. Also we must keep in mind it has to be recent publication 2013 or 2014. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if the figure is not in the book, then it is my fault. I must have given the wrong citation. But I definitely did see 7 million figure in some article of Chetan Bhatt.

Here is another way to estimate it. Several sources mention that RSS currently has about 40,000 shakhas (local branches). Each branch is supposed to have 50-100 members. So, that gives a figure of 4 million. I guess the Guardian reporter made some calculation error and came up with a figure of 40 million. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, @Vanamonde93:,@Kkm010: I think no one knows the actual number of members of RSS. All are conjectures. They(Books) can not even produce any source in support of their claims. It is ridiculously ranging from 2.5 mollion to 40 million. So, I think it is better only to state "Several million". This phrase is also used by all those books taken as sources. It will be academically correct. BTW, one can not pass outdated 2001 data as the data of 2014-15. Thank you all.Ghatus (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I Think putting several million in membership section would not be very helpfull rather it would look awkward and confusing, below are few sources which claim certain figures pls check them and let me know whether shall i put them or not [3] [4] [5] [6] majority of the sources claim the figure to be between 4.5 million to 6 million. I think we must take one of the sources from here put the figure. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ghatus: I am sorry. You are trying to create an issue where there isn't one. The numbers you see in the academic books are estimates, not "conjectures". They are consistent with all the other information we have, like the number of shakhas, both in 2001 and now. The 40 million number is a mistake. We are not going to lose sleep over one news reporter that couldn't do his math right. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kkm010: The newspaper references you have given all say around 4.5m, which is consistent with the number of shakhas. If it is possible to put "local branches" in the infobox, you can add it with the number 44,982, which is a precise number given to us by Times of India [7]. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright guys the sources I mentioned here go though all of them and put one which is best and give specific information, pls mention membership + shakas + local branches as well. I think it would really helpfully for our viewer. Guys I'm totally convinced the Guardian source is incorrect. We must go with majority of sources which claim 4.5m to 6m. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for agreeing! The estimate is based on the RSS rules which say that a shakha should have 50-100 members. So, the uncertainty of a factor of 2 is built into any estimate. Newspapers might simplify things, but it is scientific to accurately represent the uncertainty in the estimate. The estimates also go over 4.5m because there would be inactive members who might not attend the shakha everyday for whatever reason. (For instance, we don't expect Narendra Modi would attend the shakha everyday, even though he is still a "member.") So, 2.5-6.0 million is perfectly right. I have added the number of shakhas to the line the best way I could figure out how. I am not an expert on infoboxes. If you can create a separate entry for local branches, please feel free. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added shakhas, local branches already mentioned. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is no good because shakha means a local branch. So, we would be inconsistent. I have given up on the Chetan Bhatt as a source because it is out of date. I will update the figures using your sources. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well Done.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2014

The RSS is blamed most of terrorist attacks in Churches, Mosques and Gurdwaras in India. The RSS is blamed for killing of thousands of Christians and Muslims during riots all over India. Kuldeepsingh94 (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

SIKH rss section to be added to this page please & Refs given

This page needs a small section On the "RSS sikhs" the following news report states that a Far right sikh group within the RSS have forced Christians To convert to sikhsism in the Punjab.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/ghar-wapsi-punjab-rss-returns-christians-sikhism-raises-akali-ire-2001091.html

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/in-punjab-sangh-works-for-return-to-sikhism-as-well-sad-fumes/99/

Youtube news report On the RSS sikhs force converting Christians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGhLaKp5pMY92.236.96.38 (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Caplock

BJP and RSS to be titled as Terrorist By a American Court in april?

Latest news On this has just been spotted, Would it be possible to write on this page that American sikhs are heading to an American Court to brand The RSS and its links such as(BJP) as a Hindu terrorist group?92.236.96.38 (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Caplock

Only after the Court gives its ruling. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2015

122.169.242.38 (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No request given. A request should be in the form "Change X to Y" or "Add Z between P and Q" and provide a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2015

122.169.242.38 (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC) 9703691677 9703691677970369167797036916779703691677970369167797036916779703691677970369167797036916779703691677970369167797036916779703691677970369167797036916779703691677970369167797036916779703691677970369167797036916779703691677970369167797036916779703691677

 Not done No request given. A request should be in the form "Change X to Y" or "Add Z between P and Q" and provide a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Muslims join RSS

Please add this info.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. You want us to add "Mr. Haque has joined the RSS" to the article? --regentspark (comment) 12:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to prove that the idea of RSS being anti-Muslim is just an academic conspiracy. I am ok to add it if I can also add that the RSS has used its Muslim members/sympathisers to terrorist bomb other Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)

The Muslim branch of the RSS Muslim Rashtriya Manch should be mentioned in the lead.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree, Muslim Rashtriya Manch is a prominent and well defined wing of it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A "wing"? That is a new word! Should we also call the BJP a political "wing" of the RSS? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry people. But lacking scholarly sources, none of this stuff is worthy of adding to the article. We could, if you like, add Mr. Haque's RSS membership to Mazharul Haque because it is pertinent there. --regentspark (comment) 18:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Forget about the article. AmritasyaPutra and I want to merely link to the Muslim Rashtriya Manch article in the lead.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not significant enough. I note that it is included in the affiliated organizations list and that's probably the best place for it. If, at some time, scholarly sources highlight the importance of this (or any other) affiliated organization, then I suppose we could consider adding something about it. --regentspark (comment) 01:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with RP here. We cannot mention all of the 20 odd affiliates of the RSS in the lede; and among those affiliates, the MRM certainly does not have the sort of coverage required to set it apart. It should, and is, mentioned in the "affiliated organisations" section. Though god knows those descriptions could use work. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2015

Calling it right wing is an unsubstantiated opinion & as such should be deleted. 118.102.174.130 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The right-wing label appears to be specifically sourced (see info box) and therefore is not unsubstantiated. --regentspark (comment) 18:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

General Secretary of RSS.

there should be information about general secretary of rss in the wikipedia of rss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.255.184.124 (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added it. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Article says

-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh abbreviated as RSS (IPA:Rāṣṭrīya Svayansēvaka Saṅgha) (pronunciation: [rɑːʂˈʈriːj(ə) swəjəmˈseːvək ˈsəŋɡʱ], lit. "National Volunteer Organization"[11] or National Patriotic Organization[12]) is a right-wing charitable, educational, volunteer, Hindu nationalist,[5] non-governmental organization-

Right wing politics is defined by Wikipedia itself as -Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition-

So the term right wing is obviously not attributable to RSS because they try to eliminate inequalities in society at least in principle. So RSS is not a Right wing group. Please edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.174 (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done Unfortunately, the material you want removed is well sourced. Note that Wikipedia does not define anything, we merely use whatever reliable sources state. --regentspark (comment) 14:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2015

Virajdamle (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC) BJP crossed 9 crores membership needs to change data for Membership.

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

A single point ( RSS's non-participation in "freedom struggle") is of multiple quotes and disproportionate weight making it repetitive and boring to a reader. Cut it brief with one or two quotes. One easily can observe that and compare it with other points.

Indian independence movement

The RSS proclaimed itself as a social movement and refused to consider itself a political party, and did not play any role in the Indian independence movement. However, the RSS emphatically rejected Gandhiji's willingness to cooperate with Muslims in the Anti-British struggle. In 1934, Congress passed a resolution prohibiting its members from joining RSS, Hindu Mahasabha or Muslim League. After founding the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in 1925, Hedgewar started the tradition of keeping the RSS away from the anti-British Indian Independence movement.The RSS carefully avoided any political activity that could be construed as being anti-British. The RSS biographer C. P. Bhishikar states, "After establishing Sangh, Doctor Saheb in his speeches used to talk only of Hindu organization. Direct comment on Government used to be almost nil". When the Congress passed the Purna Swaraj resolution in its Lahore session in December 1929, and called upon all Indians to celebrate January 26, 1930 as Independence Day, Hedgewar issued a circular asking all the RSS shakhas(branches) to observe the occasion through hoisting and worship of its own Bhagwa Jhanda(saffron flag), rather than the Tricolor (which was, by consensus, considered the flag of the Indian national movement at that time). 1930 was the only year when the RSS celebrated 26th January and it stopped the practice from the next year onwards. However, such celebration became a standard feature of the freedom movement and often came to mean violent confrontation with the official police. Hedgewar's biographer C.P. Bhishikar states, "[In April 1930], Mahatma Gandhi gave a call for 'Satyagraha' against the British Government. Gandhi himself launched the Salt Satyagraha undertaking his Dandi Yatra. Hedgewar decided to participate only individually and not let the RSS join the freedom movement officially. He sent information everywhere that the Sangh will not participate in the Satyagraha. However those wishing to participate individually in it were not prohibited. This meant that any responsible worker of the Sangh could not participate in the Satyagraha.However, Hedgewar himself participated in Satyagraha in individual capacity. M.S. Golwalkar became the second Sarsanghchalak(head) of the RSS in 1940, and under him, this policy was further continued. Golwalkar was always more vocal and forthright about the RSS' non-involvement in the anti-British Indian freedom struggle. In a speech delivered by him at Indore in 1960, Golwalkar said "Many people worked with the inspiration to free the country by throwing the British out... We should remember that in our pledge we have talked of the freedom of the country through defending religion and culture.These is no mention of departure of the British in that." Golwalkar even lamented on the anti-British nationalism of pre-independence India. In his book titled "We or our Nationhood Defined" , he criticized the vigorous anti-British character of the Indian freedom movement. In Golwalkar's own words, "Anti-Britishism was equated with patriotism and nationalism. This reactionary view has had disastrous effects upon the entire course of the freedom struggle, its leaders and the common people." This tradition was subsequently followed and under M.S. Golwalkar, the RSS completely abstained from joining the Quit India Movement in 1942 as well. The Bombay government(British) appreciated the RSS as such, by noting that, "the Sangh has scrupulously kept itself within the law, and in particular, has refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August 1942". The British Government stated that the RSS was not at all supporting any civil disobedience against them, and as such their other political activities(even if objectionable) can be overlooked. Further, the British also asserted that at sangh meetings organized during the times of anti-British movements started and fought by the Indian National Congress, "speakers urged the sangh members to keep aloof from the congress movement and these instructions were generally observed" . Golwalkar did not want to give the British any excuse to ban the RSS, and he was willing to do anything for that. When the British Government banned military drills and use of uniforms in non-official organisations, Golwalkar complied and terminated the RSS military department on April 29, 1943. To this effect, Golwalkar distributed a circular to senior RSS figures, the wordings of which revealed his apprehensions about a possible British ban on the RSS. The circular went thus: "We discontinued practices included in the Government's early orders on military drills and uniforms...to keep our work clearly within bounds of law, as every law abiding institution would...Hoping that circumstances would ease early, we had in a sense only suspended that part of our training. Now, however, we decide to stop it altogether and abolish the department without waiting for the time to change" M.S. Golwalkar later openly admitted to the fact that the RSS did not participate in the Quit India Movement. However, such a dubious attitude during the Indian freedom movement also led to the Sangh being viewed with distrust and anger, both by the general Indian public, as well as certain members of the organization itself. In Golwalkar’s own words, “In 1942 also, there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time too, the routine work of the Sangh continued. Sangh decided not to do anything directly. ‘Sangh is the organization of inactive people, their talks have no substance’ was the opinion uttered not only by outsiders but also our own swayamsevaks” Further, the RSS did not even participate in the anti-British Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946. References

Another point, the line ""...Manu's laws" from the controversial ancient hindu text Manu Smriti, which had been accused of denigrating the lower castes and untouchables in India." is WP:OR. It is not given in the source.[8] Historically, RSS did not want a "secular" constitution, it had nothing to do with "Upper caste or lower caste Hindus". Ghatus (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The article fell victim to quote farmers. Please keep the citations that seem reliable and summarise the content in an encyclopaedic way. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I second that. Kautilya3, can you please help address the weight/due-relevance? Or I can do it with your guidance. I do not have exact organizational historic details. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will take a shot at it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that is a lot of change in one edit, is it a revert? I am afraid I was unable to follow for lack of time and interest at this point and a trust that you would have done a fair job. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I do complicated stuff like that offline. It took me only half a day! There are a couple more sections that need cleaning up. I will get to them later. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Trust need not be two-way. But it works when it is mutual. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

RSS as a Terrorist Organisation

Claiming that RSS activists have been indicted in at least 13 terror cases across India, former Maharashtra inspector general of police S.M. Mushrif on Thursday described the Hindutva outfit as India's No.1 terrorist organisation. The RSS is India's number one terrorist organisation, there is no doubt on this," said Mushrif, referring to the 2007 Mecca Masjid bombing in Hyderabad, the 2006 and 2008 Malegaon blasts in Maharashtra and the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings among others. He also said that RSS activists have been charge-sheeted in at least 13 cases of terror acts in which RDX has been used. If organisations like Bajrang Dal are taken into the account, then the number of such cases goes up to 17," Mushrif said at an event here. Read more at: http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/RSS-Indias-No.1-Terror-Group-Former-Mumbai-Police-Officer/2015/11/26/article3148195.ece Read more at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/rss-indias-no-1-terror-group-former-mumbai-police-officer/articleshow/49940560.cms?from=mdr References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015

Sir As I can see the photo of A RSS swayamsevak with full uniform is very old and doesnot have an updated Uniform I request you to change the photo with the updated uniform and should include the prarthana in that photo So the people should know whats is the Prarthana and what oath Swayamsevak takes every Day I have an photo of same as I told above please have a look...--Shivaisawesome (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AA_RSS_Prarthana_and_Swayamsevak_with_Full_Uniform.jpg Thank You.. Shivaisawesome (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Image tagged as copyvio. And the uniform is the same as shown in File:A RSS swayamsevak.jpg §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

RSS- requesting references for it being defined as 'Charitable' and 'Educational'

I noticed there are null references to the RSS being 'an educational' and 'charitable' organisation. If it is indeed charitable, why is it that there are no published/verifiable records on previous donors? There is no record of revenues from donations being published annually as Indian law would require such a charitable NGO to do so. Please verify ASAP, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagriclan (talk • contribs) 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Candleabracadabra: diff. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that sock is gone now. So is the content. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

RSS does get funds from charity. See [9], [10] for example. And it runs many schools. See [11], [12] for example. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, RSS does charitable work, especially through its affiliates. But there is a difference between saying RSS does charitable work and saying that it is a "charitable organisation." To say the latter, we definitely need a reliable source. We also need to consider WP:WEIGHT. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

RSS is both; does charity and runs on charity, the later being something which the originator was talking about. Am not insisting on reverting. Just wanted to add here so some sentences could be written in the article about both things. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

History section

The History section is rather too detailed and loses focus from the substance of the article itself. I would like to fork it off as a separate article, and write a condensed summary for the History section. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User: Ekvastra reverts

User: Ekvastra, Can you provide an online source where Dr.Ambedkar praised RSS , an Hindutva organisation? In case, if you can't then I would have to revert your changes. Terabar (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Tagging User: Joshua Jonathan for his opinon. Terabar (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources may not be online, it is not an excuse to delete content. I did not add it in first place. If you want a change to sourced content the burden is on you. I followed your contributions after noticing your strong bias, that is all. --Ekvastra (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User: Joshua Jonathan Can we insert an offline source when there is no URL or online source to verify it? Terabar (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The sources need to be published, not necessarily online. However, the citations need to be complete, with publishers, publication date, and page numbers. If not, they can be challenged. In this particular case, the sources need to be WP:HISTRS because it is historical information that is being discussed. They also need to be WP:THIRDPARTY. M. G. Chitkara is an RSS insider and doesn't qualify as THIRDPARTY. The elaborate quotation is unwarranted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I should also add that, when an editor reinstates deleted material, the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability transfers to him/her. So, @Ekvastra: it is now your job to provide full citations. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• The source is really irrelevant. The point of having an article about RSS is not to make it into a collection of anecdotes that put RSS in a particular light. The point is to summarize how relevant scholars have described RSS and its history so that the reader may better understand the organization. The insertion of the material anecdote of Ambedkar is misleading in that way and clearly included only to put RSS in a positive light. Ambedkar was not in favor of RSS regardless of what he may or may not have said that day, and RSS is not generally considered an anti-caste organization. So the anecdote actually misinforms the reader about Ambedkar and RSS and their mutual relation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Maunus, Kautilya3, I did not know that "burden" clause has to be interpreted that way. --Ekvastra (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I do understand, though, that this quote is being used. It seems to provide a very nice summary of RSS-ideology, almost a slogan: "there are neither "touchables" nor "untouchables" but only Hindus." If the emphasis is not on Ambedkar (and the supposition that the quote is being used to portray Ambedkar as in favor of the RSS), but on RSS-ideology, than the picture is different. Nevertheless, I also do understand the objections. best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If it is the case that a significant part of RSS ideology and practice is the abolition of caste discrimination among hindus, then that presumably can easily be sourced to reliable sources, and described without recourse to an anecdote about Ambedkars visit.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Misleading information on national flag hoisting in RSS headquarters

The section on national flag omits the important restriction about flying national flag in private buildings which was in force till 2002 . Please refer to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_code_of_India . Only after this code, ordinary Indians and non government institutions were allowed to hoist national Flag.

Also the section uses the claims of 3 miscreants to claim that RSS never hoisted national flag . The reality is that RSS hoisted it on 2 days ( Independence day and Republic Day) as was allowed by the law since independence.

Consequently,

1. The statement that "In 2002, subsequently the National Flag was raised in the RSS headquarters on the occasion of Republic Day for the first time, after 52 years" is wrong and should be removed

2. A reference to Flag Code of India should be introduced so that it is clear that *nobody* was free to hoist national flag before 2002 except on 2 special days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virunew (talk • contribs) 09:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

seems to suggest that RSS did not hoist the Tricolor EVEN on National Festivals. There is another news item that seems to suggest Flag hoisting was forcibly stopped by RSS on Republic day in 2001 at their headquarters. If there are references of RSS hoisting the Tricolor on 15 Aug and 26 Jan BEFORE 2002 AT their headquarters, please do mention here. ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, the Flag Code of India allowed private organisations and individuals to hoist the Tricolor on 15 Aug and 26 Jan even before 2002. ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Addition of revoking ban in the lead

I have made this edit. The source of it was an opinion piece which has a rejoinder by S Gurumurty. Also sources such as these claim that revoking ban was unconditional. -sarvajna (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why an op-ed was added back by User:Kautilya3 without even having a courtesy to reply on talk, also why has the lead so much details about one ban while the rationale of revoking other bans is not mentioned in the lead, I am reverting their edit. -sarvajna (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a scholarly source and so your objection doesn't hold any more. You have deleted reliably sourced content and are edit-warring. You can get rid of the reference to the op-ed if you want, but in my opinion, it provides valuable detail. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You got your definitions of edit warring wrong, if you really wanted to replace the source why did you not replace it but you added a source along with Op-Ed again. You did not answer the my second part about why so much details about one ban in the lead? In any case if you had checked the "Second ban" topic of the article, the article covers it what you want to convey. -sarvajna (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

AdhunikaSarvajna, you are conflating two issues here. The Vidya Subramanyan source is redundant, nothing more, and that is not a basis for removing any content. If you are arguing about undue weight in the lead, that is a tenable argument, but please don't drag the sources into it. Personally, I am not hung up on that sentence being in the lead; but a wider discussion about that would be appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I have already the issue of sources and don't need to repeat myself. As for why the bans should be in the lead, MOS:LEAD says it should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Therefore, the bans must be covered. Moreover, the sentence you have deleted (twice) is not only about bans, but about the promises the RSS made about its own identity and goals. That is something every reader of this page needs to be told. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Akhil Bharatiya Sharirik Pramukh be merged with this article, because it is a non-notable official position of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Please comment. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support I'd go further and say you could redirect the article here without discussion; it is one sentence long and unsourced. Vanamonde (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• weak Support can be done or else it will require expansion with third party sources. notability/significance is also an issue. Adamstraw99 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016

kill all christians paul jhetty in india

115.118.112.160 (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done not clear what changes are to be made here, and the sentence fragment suggests a violation of NOTFORUM. Vanamonde (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

RSS as a far-right organisation

The RSS is a proactive Hindu extremist group, and as it falls under the criterion for far-right groups, it should be labelled on Wikipedia as so. Have a look at it's involvement in Hindutva politics and 2002 Gujarat riots. Any talk on this? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagriclan (talk • contribs)

Then what about 1942, 1947, 1961 And what about godhra Himajmmi (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The RSS is a proactive Hindu extremist group, and as it falls under the criterion for far-right groups, it should be labelled on Wikipedia as so. Have a look at it's involvement in Hindutva politics and 2002 Gujarat riots. Ainmem (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to produce reliable sources labelling it as such. Also, check the archives of this talk page, where I am sure the issue has been discussed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

There is so much content added in last 2 months that have twisted the source or mentioned source which is not connected to the content that is added or has no source at all and all these additions have just added negativity to this organization. Fix this before removing the neutrality tag. I will be doing edits to remove badly sourced negative content.  A m i t  웃   20:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

RSS is a controversial organization and a lot of negative perspectives exist. The article of course needs to cover both negative and positive views on the organization. Removing one half of the perspectives will not make the aerticle better or more neutral. Sourcing bboth views and making sure they reflect the general literature on RSS is what is needed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@A.amitkumar: You can't put on a POV tag before raising the issues first. Poorly sourced content can always be removed.

That has nothing to do with "neutrality." The way to achieve neutrality is not remove the negative content, but to find positive content and add it. If there is no positive content that can be added, then you can't complain about "neutrality." - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can put a POV tag on it. It can be removed once there is a consensus that the article is neutral. Also simply adding positive content is not the right strategy. One has to weigh positive and negative perspectives in relation to reliable sources, not just in relation to each other.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe your statement of what I cant do to add a POV tag is mentioned in any WP recommendations or rules. The tag I have added has enough links that talk about POV/NPOV and the due process to add and remove the POV tag. Please verify your claims by reading those links. If I am mistaken, please refer me to the appropriate WP policies before removing the POV tag. I have raised the issue of validity of the citations for the mostly negative content that have been added, I myself have not made any noticeable changes to the content without bringing up the discussion points here. (except re-arranging some content position in the article) which was mostly to format the article lead. Also the way to achieve neutrality is by biased content which are poorly sourced in this article mostly by opinion articles and books that don't in reality act as source to the specific content.  A m i t  웃   21:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

No, neutrality will only be achieved if the content policy is enforced equally strictly for both negative and positive perspectives.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, any one can put on a POV tag. But there is a procedure to be followed. Template:POV says "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.". Amit hasn't identified any specific issues, except to say that he finds the article too negative.

Neutrality does not also mean that the positive and the negative should be balanced. It means that that balance has to reflect what is found in reliable sources.

That said, I agree that too much cherry-picked junk gets added to this article every once in a while, and a periodic clean-up is warranted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya you have been referencing things wrongly in this conversation repetitively. First about POV tag's and then about specific issues which I have added that most of the sources for content added in last 2 months are not reliable . Be clear on what your agenda here is. Also respond with the proper indentation as it is causing confusion here in terms of whose response is where.  A m i t  웃   01:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• The sentence which Amitkumar removed and I reinserted[13] is a socalled topic sentence, a short sentence which sets the topic for a paragraph and makes for coherence and better reading flow. Cohesion and flow is what the article sorely needs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Aah well I just remembered that because of biased editors like you is why I became semi-retired. Thanks for reminding me. Going back into my shell, good luck ruling WP with your goons!  A m i t  웃   02:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah biased editors are the worst. Happy retirement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not very happy with the result so far here as to the Neutrality tag. A problem was accused, Kautilya recognized if not the exact problem by Amitkumar, at least a similar one. And then when a small edit conflict arose, Amitkumar "retired from wikipedia", I think the term is "ragequit". I sympathize with the feeling of frustration I suppose, but editing wikipedia is often dealing with defending specific edits, specific wording, and amitkumar seemed unwilling to go very far into discussing the specifics of the POV problems. Nevertheless the tag is still there, and was recognized as valid by Kautilya I believe. Presumably some work and/or discussion is still necessary to remove it? That has not yet been done?--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

'Rewrite lead section' and 'Quotations overuse' templates

I'm concerned with the templates that are present at the top the article. I searched for the relevant discussions in this talk page, but did not find the exact reason(s) as to why those templates are present. I want to know the specific problem(s) related to the templates, especially about the lead section (that template was present from April 2015), of which I'm unable to see any problem. I request any editor to throw some light in this regard. Thank you. — Vamsee614 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

Some serial revert editors have been reverting my edits even when the reference is present. Can this please be stopped? I have also added a second reference right from the RSS websight. Now there should be no reason for any reverts unless you are trying to edit war ThanksKatyare (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary

For the revert loving editors please refer to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary Hope this stops the unnecessary edit war.Katyare (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You should address the issues pointed out by other editors in the edit summaries. Two of them raised an objection on the poor quality of images being added. What is your justification in adding them back again and again by WP:EDITWARring without any explanation? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

words from the articular "...M. S. Golwalkar and Balasaheb Deoras, the second and third supreme leaders of the RSS, spoke against the caste system..." see fourth para from the top. Some people do not read the source before they come and blame editors! This is called as WP:EDITWAR and importantly after playing this war they blame others for playing edit war.Katyare (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you saying? Read this edit properly. - [14] See the content and the source which I removed. It has got nothing to do with what you're saying. And you still haven't answered my previous question. — Tyler Durden (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

See the national is hoisted in the karyalay, in the meetings on the days of Jan 26th and Aug 15 Ravisundar pillai (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

Please edit the location. Right location is 21.14°N 79.11°E 2405:204:A284:E8DB:E396:FAB0:811D:860D (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Done with accurate coordinates: 21.146°N 79.111°E jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2017

Sachinanndha (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

or "National Patriotic Organisation"[14]) - this should be deleted, as it is completely inaccurate. The word Swayamsevak does not have any connection with the word Patriot or Patriotic. This is an error, and as such ought to be removed.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017

The type of the organization as mentioned in the table is not accurate. The suggested correction to the type is as follows.

Largest Non-Governmental Organization

Largest Voluntary organization

Cultural, service organization Vidyavachaspati1987 (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The description on the page represents the scholarly consensus as per WP:NPOV. You need to discuss your position here and obtain consensus before any such edit can be made. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017

sasi 16:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly i am saying that there are two errors in the article.. The RSS was banned once during British rule, and then thrice by the post-independence Indian government – first in 1948 when a former RSS member assassinated Mahatma Gandhi; This is a wrong info.U should mention who is this member?? And secondly, there is no such system of membership system in the Sangh. Anyone who desires to come and participate in Sangh shakhas can participate in it and those who dislikes shakhas can quit from the shakha.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, this request appears disruptive in nature. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017

2405:204:D48A:A03F:0:0:F10:50A1 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Pls mention the Former RSS Member's name.. If it is nathuram vinayak godse,he is not a rss member. Maybe he have participated at Sangh saghas. Due to the openness nature, anyone can enter into the sagha. Entering into sagha means not a person is a rss member. So,pls correct .. And use "swayamsevak instead of Rss member". Because there is no such membership system in sangh. So,the 2 mistakes should be corrected

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

11 years of jail term for hoisting flag at RSS premises???

" In 2001 three activists of Rashtrapremi Yuwa Dal – president Baba Mendhe, and members Ramesh Kalambe and Dilip Chattani, along with others – allegedly entered the RSS headquarters in Reshimbagh, Nagpur, on 26 January, Republic Day of India, and forcibly hoisted the national flag there amid patriotic slogans. They contended that the RSS had never before or after independence, ever hoisted the tri-colour in their premises, even on Independence Day and Republic Day. Offences under the relevant section of the Bombay Police Act and the IPC were registered by the police against the trio, resulting in their being jailed. They were released after eleven years in 2013.[92][93]" This gives an impression that trio spent 11 years in jail. Is it true? the references 92, 93 didn't mention about the 11 years jail term. Please give the correct source of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt Saurabh (talk • contribs) 15:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Origins

@Arpith98: We don't need another Origins section, in addition to the existing sections on Founding and Motivations. Your new material needs to be worked into those sections without being overweight on any one particular point of view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2017

RSS is NOT a paramilitary organisation. RSS is cultural organisation. HummingDevBird (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Not according to reliable sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

@Kautilya3: How "right-wing volunteer" is supported by any of the sources? You are only misrepresenting sources because the mentioned citation[15] includes no mention of a "right wing" or even a "volunteer" let alone mentioning the term as whole. Also there are no other sources to back up this term, where as I provided 2 reliable sources for "nationalist volunteer", see WP:OR. Raymond3023 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This book is not available on Google Books. You will have to find a hard copy. But there are hundreds of reliable sources using that description. So, I think you need not bother. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

See Volunteer. Sources call it a right-wing organisation, which is different than "right wing volunteer". Infobox should say both "Nationalist volunteer", "Right-wing organisation". Raymond3023 (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It should have been "right-wing, volunteer". But now that I think about it, I think "volunteer" can be safely omitted. All organisations are volunteer organisations, more or less, and it is already in the name anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Gowalkar quote

@Pranav21391: you don't have to add your personal opinion about a quote and the quote when it has been already described with better sources on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh#World War II. Capitals00 (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: The nature of the quote is more important and its effect given that the book was more of a textbook for the RSS till 1991 (and as some sources suggest even since). The quote itself highlights the attitude towards other minorities in India. Following Adolf Hitlers ideology or admiring him for racial purity does not clearly outline the genocidal mindset the quote portrays. You can have the quote, but the genocidal nature of that quote (as stated by countless sources I can quote) should not be supplanted. Quote from the page: M. S. Golwalkar, who became the supreme leader of the RSS after Hedgewar, took inspiration from Adolf Hitler's ideology of racial purity. - In my opinion it should be re-worded to> M. S. Golwalkar, who became the supreme leader of the RSS after Hedgewar, took inspiration from Adolf Hitler's ideology of racial purity even later on admiring Hitler's final solution. Furthermore this quote existed on this very page in 2010 and 2011. We fought edit wars on this and it was accepted. It being removed is acceptable but its direction being whitewashed is unwarranted --Pranav (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody provide the diff for the edit being talked about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Paramilitary

Can you really be equated to a paramilitary organization when your members train with just a lathi (Baton/stick) ? ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There is at least some evidence that the training on lathis can be easily transferred to swords, and swords have been employed in some riots. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess if the Boy scouts can be termed paramilitary then the RSS is in a good company[16].The RSS uniform also seems to be derived from those of the scouts[17].Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2018

Kindly allow me access to edit and add informations Jazzakd (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Many of the information about RSS is utterly wrong and basless.

Rss is not a hindu organization. Rss is national self-help organisation.many different religion are all members of RSS. Go and meet RSS group personally and you will see people of different religion in it. Don't just sit behind computer and claim things. People are just putting this up to create a imagination amongst other countries who have no idea of ground reality. Threeshalkaka (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM, raise specific concern. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 15:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2018

~~

Mahatma Gandhi is not assassinated by a former RSS Member. He was the member of Hindu Maha Sabha and not the RSS

 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. Dolotta (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

In the article "An alternative interpretation is that he formed it to fight the Indian Muslims." I have access to the source and this looks like a 'motivated' summary. From the page: 1. Bose expressed, "Doctor, I am convinced that this is the one real path of national regeneration." 2. Ever since early twenties, Muslim aggressiveness had begun to mount all over the country. Any trivial excuse was enough for them to insult and attack Hindus ... the description in the article should be expanded to reflect what the sources actually say. Since this is a contentious article I would like to hear opinion of other editors. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 09:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Unregistered

Doesn't seem even remotely meaningful to me so I've removed it. I suggest getting consensus here before re-adding. --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur; the significance of this isn't clear, even if the sourcing issues were fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I had raised it on editor's talk page User talk:Pankajdoharey. Perhaps he is a new account. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 15:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Unregistered

Hi i edited some pages related to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh I have also furnished citations to the edited part that it is an Unregistered organisation. Can you please provide logical reasons why it was reverted ? The revert does not mention any reasons.

Thanks Pankaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajdoharey (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to read the edit summaries of the reverts. RegentsPark said Does registered/unregistered matter? Doesn't seem worth including in the article, i.e., it is unimportant. If you disagree, you need to explain why it is important. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ram Nath Kovind was not a RSS member ever in his life

Mr. Ram Nath Kovind was not a RSS member ever in his life. True He donated his ancestral home in Derapur to the RSS, but that does not make him a member. He directly joined BJP and every BJP member is not necessarily a by-default former RSS Member. He is current president of India and I Am surprised why this wrong info as in his name and image as RSS Swayamsewak is listed in article so boldly? Why noboday detected this error before..I Am deleting his name/image from the article... this is very important information and should not stand here without third party independent reliable sources. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it must have been some over zealous RSS follower wanting to appropriate Kovind's popularity. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 06:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The sources seem to dance around this, for some reason...there's "RSS affiliated", "RSS-trained", and such things, in the sources, but I haven't found one explicitly calling him a member. I agree that he should not be listed as such, as ideological closeness is not the same thing as formal membership. Vanamonde (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessary hair-splitting. "RSS background" means somebody that went to RSS shakhas. That is all it takes to become a "member". RSS doesn't keep any membership records.

I think these sources are good enough: [18], [19]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Won't WP:BLP require better source or statement of affiliation by the person himself? --Gian ❯❯ Talk 15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Not unless you think that the RSS is a religion!

When the RSS men enter politics, all the pracharaks turn into swayamsevaks. And, all the swayamsevaks turn into "RSS background". It is all make-believe.

The RSS oath declares a life-long allegiance. Unless there is evidence that Kovind disowned his RSS allegiance, he is RSS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

perfect, Kautilya3 Kautilya3's both sources listed above are perfectly fine. This is what I was unable to find, especially this statement in mid-day source -"He was actively associated with the RSS before joining the BJP." should be good reason to restore the earlier version before I deleted his name and image. Someone with rollback rights please restore the earlier version but kindly retain two 'see also' links of 'sewika samiti' and 'sangh pariwar' which i added in between... Thank you. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Even more explicitly

71-year-old former BJP member and RSS swayamsevak...

Kovind’s association with the rightist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), to which the BJP owes its political DNA, is only too well-known. The fact that Kovind had even donated his ancestral home in Derapur to the RSS helps lend credence to his unflinching allegiance to a saffron worldview and a staunch Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) agenda. A Dalit, who also has the RSS ideology baked into his intellectual template, is a win-win for the Modi-Shah combine...

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

• Those sources address my concerns. Vanamonde (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done, Ramnath Kovind's name and pic added back under "Political Leaders" --Adamstraw99 (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Allegation that Hedgewar was involved in terrorism

@Doug Weller: You undid a change that I had made to the allegation that Hedgewar took training as terrorist.

Please let me know what kind of evidence would be needed to disprove this allegation to your satisfaction. Because the book that once is written, cannot be unwritten. So what kind of proof would be needed to satisfy you that this allegation is false? Because otherwise, anyone with a bias can write a book and say anything, and editors with bias can use it to write encyclopedia entries that satisfy their personal political bias.

--Berzerker king (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That is basically due to lack of a better word. The intent is Aandolan or Krantikari. For the lack of a better word the author used terrorist word. Given the context of Indian Independence movement and oppression by British, mass killings and the freedom movement lead by Congress and Gandhiji, there was another group of the likes of Tilak, Netaji and others who were not averse to taking up arms for freeing their motherland. Hedgewar worked for Congress for a considerable but was hot headed and also took to learning the revolutionary techniques. 'Terrorist' is just a wrong usage by the author here. It would be quite reasonable to replace it with revolutionary given the changed meaning of the word terrorist in present age. I think Wikipedia also has a definite filter before such adjectives are used and I am sure Hedgewar's learning will not qualify 'terrorist' techniques. --Jaydayal (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jaydayal: To interpret the source in this way would be a clear violation of WP:NOR. And, frankly, ridiculous. The author is a French academic[20] Your comment about "Aandolan" or "Krantikari" is your opinion and not what the author of the source wrote or indeed I'm sure meant. Jaydayal, I don't mean to be rude but I hope you haven't interpreted any sources in your editing. Finally, we don't call him a terrorist. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I can confirm that Jaffrelot has used the term "terrorist" numerous times in the book [21] as well as in this context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is informed and backed by explained context and common sense. No offense, please don't take any. I don't mind what is there in the article, but I know it is plain silly to use that adjective here. You can't get away by saying we aren't calling him terrorist, well, so who is learning terrorist techniques? Why are we so hung on specific words when there are more appropriate ones, he is definitely not known to have learnt or used or stood for 'terrorism' or 'terrorist techniques'. He was a stalwart in Congress and later in RSS too. We are expected to summarize based on broad contextual narratives instead of hanging on to one specific adjective available in one book, I think you would agree with this if you consider from the point of view of BKing above, he expects a summary and wants to challenge using a specific word verbatim here in this article. In a summary article or passing by mention here it is little loaded and reasonable to reword it or expand it. Let me repeat, no offense taken, please don't take any either. I am expressing my opinion just like you, with reasoning, just like you. It is reasonable expectation to think what was the word used in the language back home in Marathi, or Hindi or Telugu, I can tell (not opinion, factually) it doesn't translate to modern day 'terrorism' used by French or English. --Jaydayal (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion might indeed be informed, etc, but it really doesn't matter here. See WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. It is strictly against policy to interpret sources in this way. And frankly I don't see how it matters what word was used where or when, we go by what the source says. I don't expect many modern day terrorists use the word terrorist, and doubt very much it was used at that time. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:Hi Doug. It is not a matter of interpretation, but the matter of stating the opinion of someone as a fact in wikipedia voice that needs to be corrected. As per the wikipedia policy "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view" it states "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." If you want to keep the word terrorist in there, then we request that explicit mention be made that it is the opinion of the writer. Please let us know if you are countering this proposal or not.--Berzerker king (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, it's a statement of what happened. The author doesn't even call him a terrorist. You can study terrorist tactics without being a terrorist. But most of this probably originally comes from RSS documents. The RSS seems proud to say that he threw a bomb into a police station in 1907, although I gather he wasn't charged and I'd need better sources than I have to put that in his article. Are you really challenging the fact that part of the reason he was sent to Calcutta was to contact the Bengali revolutionaries (who of course used what we call terrorist tactics). Doug Weller talk 17:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:Hi Doug. I would like to bring to your attention that you are using statements like "probably originally comes from" and "seems proud to". I would like to ask whether you think it is justifiable to use such statements like "probably" and "seems to" to put material in encyclopedia entry. More importantly, is it *WRONG* to say that it is a statement of what happened. It might be "a statement of what happened" to say that he studied with secret societies in Bengal, but whether his studies where "terrorist" or "revolutionary" is not "a statement of what happened", but an opinion of the author. I urge that you allow to add the qualification that the categorization of what he studied was "terrorist" is an opinion of the author and not an established fact. Please reply so that we can decide upon this part. --Berzerker king (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If we write 'Bengali revolutionaries' or 'freedom fighters' it gives the right context, 'secret society' makes it mysterious if not exotic. --Jaydayal (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Berzerker king: Can I bring to your attention that this is a talk page, not an encyclopedia entry? That's a casual statement and I didn't plan to say any of that in the article. However, I can see that I've read at least one RSS document that makes it clear that they were definitely proud of him. And they were definitely not secret societies, you don't seem aware at all of the reality of the situation. Secret societies don't throw bombs or assassinate people, terrorists do. This was a revolutionary movement and some of the tactics they used are part of the definition of terrorism, eg throwing a bomb into a building. I don't disagree with the fact that they were freedom fighters, but the sources that discuss them and Hedgewar refer to them as revolutionaries or terrorists or both. I guess we could quote the author and attribute the quote if that doesn't look clumsy, but we can't change a source or state that it was his opinion (it's not an opinion to say that throwing bombs, etc is a terrorist tactic). Doug Weller talk 20:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:"we can't change a source or state that it was his opinion (it's not an opinion to say that throwing bombs, etc is a terrorist tactic)" that is not correct. By your logic you will have to classify the Bolshevik party, the American patriots and the Chinese communist fighters as terrorist as well. Did they not throw bombs and shoot guns? The context when such things happen is extremely important. Please let me know if you consider these organizations as terrorist as well for throwing bombs or if you make distinction that these organizations were revolutionary and not terrorist due to the context. --Berzerker king (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:Are you saying that it is an undisputed fact that Hedgewar took terrorist training or are you saying that it is an undisputed fact that there is a writer so and so, who wrote that the training Hedgewar took was terrorist training? Please clarify so that we can work accordingly to make the article more factual. --Berzerker king (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If you don't know the difference between warfare and terrorist activities this discussion is a wastes of time. It's also a waste of time if you think revolutionaries never use terrorist tactics. If you think the source fails WP:RS then go to WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The only thing you said correctly is that this is a waste of time. In a discussion between you who has admin privileges and me who does not, you have just frozen your point of view and refuse to consider any argument other than your own. This conversation is not going on as a discussion where both parties are trying to understand the task at hand objectively, but rather as a fight where you have just decided that you are not going to change your mind. I have no desire to continue with this discussion anymore. --Berzerker king (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You expressed it poignantly accurately. Admins are more equal than others here for all practical purpose. His holy book is the holiest and his prophet the true and only one, hence irrelevant if he can't access context obtained from non-English language source or author. It is ironic that the simple info that he came there and joined medical profession and was eventually one out of only 70 qualified medical in the entire state of Maharashtra. That he worked in Congress for several years, he met Aurobindo Ghosh on behalf of Congress.. so on.. is not considered, what is considered summarily most important is debatable here but a discussion regarding the same is not likely to run smooth. Perhaps systemic bias or maybe my perception. No hard feelings. --Jaydayal (talk)

My being an Admin (or even an Arbitrator) is irrelevant except that it suggests I have more experience and knowledge than many editors. I can't use my Admin tools in a debate. Insults won't help you. It's a fact that terrorist tactics are used in almost every war or revolution sooner or later - in WWII both the Allies and the Axis used them, but we don't call Hitler a terrorist. Studying terrorist techniques doesn't make one a terrorist. @Jaydayal: do you also share Berzerker King's view that Fascism and Nazism are left-wing? And what is more relevant for this article, not his article, that he studied medicine or that he linkjed up with revolutionaries and evidently studied terrorist tactics? For this article, I'd say the latter. By the way, I don't think you've mentioned any non-English language sources or authors. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I do not have an informed opinion about Fascism/Nazism being left-wing. I would say you are right - his link with revolutionary is more important that his study for this article. I do think there is systemic bias on wiki, I am not bitter about it, I accept it as reality and merely noted it as playing out in this discussion as well. I believe an open discussion is not very likely, I know the profile of this french author in English sources and it would be nearly impossible to get any other source to weight higher per wiki policies, yet we have the ability to be open to choose wording as per larger context, may be adding another line of context when editors with varying opinion are discussing in earnest than to throw the rule book at them. Rakesh Sinha book is contemporary and authentic about Hedgewar. 'secret society', 'terrorist techniques' doesn't do justice, leave a scope for explanation, but as noted earlier, we already have a verdict, or do we? --Jaydayal (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have added "revolutionary" for the Bengali societies. As for them using "terrorist tactics", here is a sample of sources:

• Heehs, Peter (2015), "Revolutionary Terrorism in British Bengal", in Elleke Boehmer; Stephen Morton (eds.), Terror and the Postcolonial: A Concise Companion, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 156–159, ISBN 978-1-119-05619-5
• Uz Zaman, Rashed (2013), "Bengal terrorism and the ambiguity of the Bengali Muslims", in Jussi M. Hanhimäki; Bernhard Blumenau (eds.), An International History of Terrorism: Western and Non-Western Experiences, Routledge, pp. 151–, ISBN 978-0-415-63540-0
• Ghosh, Durba (2017), Gentlemanly Terrorists: Political Violence and the Colonial State in India, 1919–1947, Cambridge University Press, pp. 226–, ISBN 978-1-107-18666-8

There are lots more of course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a welcome response. Unless BKing wants to continue this discussion I think we can shelve it for later because I am not inclined to continue actively on wiki. --Jaydayal (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hindu Supremacist

The line in the lead and infobox was

... is an Indian right-wing, Hindu nationalist, Hindu supremacist paramilitary volunteer organisation.

Hindu supremacist

References

This reliably sourced content on Hindu supremacist added by User:Wikiforhistory being removed by

• Orientls (talk · contribs)

using frivolous edit summaries such as

1. 09:57, 11 December 2018 Orientls Undid revision 871745405 by Wikiforhistory (talk) unsupported by source
2. 01:07, 15 December 2018 Wikiforhistory restored the content (Undid revision 873105527 by Orientls (talk) source says the exact words)
3. 22:41, 21 December 2018 Orientls Undid revision 873741324 by Wikiforhistory (talk) no you are misrepresenting source
4. 09:29, 24 December 2018 DBigXray (Reverted 1 edit by Orientls (talk): The cited source BBC here clearly mentions the said words. (TW))]
5. 09:32, 24 December 2018 Qualitist (Reverted 2 edits by DBigXray (talk) to last revision by Orientls. (TW))
6. 21:35, 24 December 2018 DBigXray (re-add fixing layout errors and refs)]
7. 22:14, 24 December 2018 Orientls (talk | contribs) (none of these sources including several unreliable ones say it is their category)

Orientls, it is quite obvious here, that you are using misleading edit summaries to disruptively edit war to remove sourced content from this article. care to explain your edit summaries here on talk ? The content is reliably sourced and there is absolutely no misrepresentation as you are trying to claim here. your behavior is WP:BITEy to the new user User:Wikiforhistory as well. Right after the first revert you should have opened a talk page here and explained your point, but it seems you are more intent on edit warring using misleading edit summaries. Now, I see you have again reverted my sources and content as well, I expect you to self revert and restore the content. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 19:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Source fails to support to term which was being frequently added as also shown by your own edit,[22] otherwise why you modified it? You were adding into "type" parameter, which is not supported by the sources and one of your sources say "His last phase can be seen 'more.... nineteenth century Hindu revivalism in Bengal whose Hindu supremacist agenda". How that is directly related to RSS? Even if you could represent sources correctly then you need to understand that these sources use the term "Hindu supremacist" as synonym to "Hindu nationalist" or "Hindutva". Per WP:LABEL, we use what is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", that's why we use the most common terms here and "Hindu supremacist" isn't the one. Qualitist (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

No, "Hindu supremacist" is not a synonym of "hindu nationalist". And the rest of your comment makes no sense at all. It is obvious, that you have not even read these sources I listed. This is mentioned as it is in the sources and just because your mate Orientls has been caught here lying in his edit summaries does not mean you have to lie as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a synonym of "Hindutva" Or "Hindu nationalism", according to the context of the sources. Refrain from personal attacks. First three reverts including your revert was a misrepresentation of source, since you claimed that text is supported by source when the source lacked any mention of "supremacy" and you were adding it as "purpose=". After that you added "supremacist" as "type" but that does not fit there because you don't understand the difference between "type" and "purpose". You need multiple reliable sources if they use all these 3 terms to define the group. Until then the article is fine with using the most widely used terms since those terms define purpose just as much. Qualitist (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not (yet) getting involved in this content debate, but this edit summary is absolutely unacceptable for the edit that it came with. The content is explicitly supported by the source; the edit summary is misleading. Orientls, do you still insist that the source Wikihistory added do not support the content in question? Vanamonde (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• I had described to Wikiofhistory on his talk page as well that he was misrepresenting source by adding "Hindu supremacy" as purpose,[23] I saw no need to preserve his content to lead since his single edit included both addition to infobox which misrepresented source and his addition to lead had NPOV and relevance issues. We can't add contentious labels that are not explicitly supported and described for this article by the reliable source per WP:SYNTH. I saw the addition of "Hindu supremacy" as "purpose" which is unsupported by source. Where we can find assertion of "Hindu supremacy" as the group's purpose by the polemic source when source makes no mention of "Hindu supremacy"? It says "belligerent Hindu supremacist" (use of the term "belligerent" is itself prohibited by WP:EXTREMIST) but it nowhere justifies addition of "Hindu supremacy" as purpose. I also saw these passing mentions should not be included and they will require sources that makes detailed description because when we compare with a quality reliable source like this book by Jaffrelot which describes the purpose of RSS as "Hindu nationalism" and "Hindutva", we fail to see any same description or categorization being provided for "Hindu supremacy" by any of the sources. Orientls (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• That is obfuscation. The "purpose" parameter in this infobox is used to describe the ideology of the RSS (whether that is appropriate is a different question). You know this, because even the Jaffrelot source you brought up is discussing RSS ideology. WP:EXTREMIST does not forbid the use of "belligerent"; it requires the use of in-text attribution. Failing to provide in-text attribution is not source misrepresentation, and calling it such is inappropriate. Finally, Jaffrelot might disagree with the provided source, but that doesn't invalidate the source provided, which still says "belligerent Hindu supremacist", and using that to describe the RSS's ideology as "Hindu supremacy" is not source misrepresentation. If you're still not seeing that, a trip to AE might be necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• There is no "ideology" parameter for this infobox. It exists for Infobox political party but not this one. "Focus/purpose" is not supposed to mean "ideology" but I can see where it is coming from. A request had been posted before to add "ideology=" to the template of this infobox, because this infobox lacks a "ideology" parameter.[24] I would say it is a matter of consensus and neither one side is wrong or correct. I had seen these edits and expected the source to describe RSS's purpose, something that hasn't been done by the source. Since this thread is supposed to discuss inclusion of "Hindu supremacy", I would say that I oppose the inclusion for the reasons already laid out above. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• I am not arguing for the inclusion of "Hindu supremacy" in that particular parameter. However, that parameter has clearly been co-opted for ideology in this article. Therefore, arguing that any descriptor should not be included there because that parameter is "purpose" and not "ideology" is off the mark. Personally, I'm not not in favor of using that parameter at all, because "purpose: Hindutva" borders on meaningless. The content should either be dealt with in the prose, or the infobox needs changing. Vanamonde (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

generally hindubsupremascist term is nt used inbcontext of indian politcs. mostly pro hindu organization are known as hindu nationalist _Srijanx22_ 07:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srijanx22 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2019

Add new subtitle "Funding of RSS"

Start with "BR Shetty owner of UAE Exchange and NMC Group, UAE, said to be biggest fund raiser for RSS" Source:http://www.coastaldigest.com/news/82685-rss-mulls-strengthening-its-presence-in-uae-other-gulf-countries Geetacpd (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE --regentspark (comment) 16:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

RSS is currently designated as a religious terrorist organization. Mannyboy2015 (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Designated by whom? If you have access to the full original text of this source, could you please reopen this request and give a quotation to the relevant section of the article? – Þjarkur (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi. Please use the talk page to work out consensus rather than edit warring. The article is protected for a short time. --regentspark (comment) 01:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

RegentsPark, did you really intend to protect this for a week? ∯WBG^converse 12:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That was my intention - to open up temporal space for discussion or thought. Too long, you think? It's not a particularly active subject. --regentspark (comment) 13:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New section

Should the "Ideology" section about “Other Religions, Caste System, Votebank Politics, Terrorism and Diplomatic relations” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not?122.179.64.141 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the content needs to be sourced to WP:THIRDPARTY reliable sources. There are half-a-dozen scholarly sources on the RSS listed in the bibliography. You can use them to find material. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, Hkelkar, BhaiSaab, Shiva's Trident, Basawala, Babub, Wikiality123, Gbprakash, Darrowen, Eggman64, Harshalhb~enwiki, Darrowen, Sindhian, Vrite2me, LahmacunKebab, Jaydayal, Unspokentruth, Sandeepsp4u, Bakasuprman, Evox777, Krantmlverma, Deshabhakta, Profitoftruth85, Dracostav1325, and Ashwin Arun: Please scroll the revision history. I suspect there may be anything salvaging in the removed content about Ideology. 122.171.208.73 (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC about New section

Should the "[25] or [26] Ideology" section about “Other Religions, Caste System, Votebank Politics, Terrorism and Diplomatic relations” (or substantially similar content) be included in the article or not? 122.171.148.192 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead fixation

I have reverted a bunch of changes to the lead. The lead needs to summarise the most salient aspects of the article, not advertising bullets cherry-picked from news articles. There are plenty of scholarly treatments of the RSS available. They should form the basis of the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, What kind of organisation RSS is needs be to be in the first sentence itself, and all the salient aspect can be and should be a part of the lead. From a normal users perspective, information should be laid out in a better manner. If there's a question on the authenticity of any argument/s, then it should be removed from the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkeshsharma (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pinkeshsharma:, please remember to sign your posts and see HELP:TALK for how to write talk page posts with correct indentation.

I agree with you that what kind of organisation it is should be explained first. But your edit is doing the exact opposite. It is pushing the typology down and pushing the idea of a "largest voluntary organisation". "Largest" is irrelevant at this point. And "voluntary" is raising a question rather than answering one. Volunteer for what?

It looks like you are still finding your way around here. I suggest you start with some less contentious topics and get to understand how Wikipedia works before attacking a page like this. You also need to read the Wikipedia policies as best as you can. There are discretionary sanctions in effect for this topic, which means you will be held responsible for knowing and applying all the applicable Wikipedia policies. If you don't follow them, you can be sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, Look, I have no idea what this organization is, and if you look closely to my edit, I moved a sentence up in the lead itself. I didn't add anything I didn't delete anything, neither I have moved any sentence from one para to another nor I have any intention to do so. The sentence I moved was already in the lead, I just moved it up, becuase whatever it says, it should be first. I have added some more info, I got from Encyclopaedia Britannica, to improve the quality of the article. Thanks. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkeshsharma (talk • contribs)

If you don't know what this organisation is, you should not be editing this page. The WP:BURDEN for arguing for any change you make rests on you. If you can't argue for it, if you can't convince the rest of the editors, you can't make the change. Please remember that all edits to Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. You don't have any inherent privilege to make it what you want. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pinkeshsharma: it's simply not true that you didn't delete anything. You changed " Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organisation that is widely regarded as the parent organisation of the ruling party of India," to ", Hindu nationalist, volunteer organisation that is regarded as the parent organisation of the political party of India,". Dropping "ruling" is just unhelpful, droppoing "paramilitary" seems an attempt to avoid that aspect of the organisation. And if you don't know what this organisation is it's odd that you came here and made these changes. Being the largest volunteer organisation in the world (and largest NGO in terms of volunteers but not in terms of employees) is interesting and needs to be in the lead, but it's not that important a characteristic of the RSS, not a defining characteristic. Those wouldn't be changed if it were the 2nd largest. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: That was my first edit where I deleted 2 words as I couldn't verify the weather they're true or not, but the other changes were rearrangement of the content within lead of the article itself. The statement "the largest volunteer organisation in the world" is a part of the statement, and my rearrangement was targeting the "volunteer organisation" part. The editing I made were minor and adhering to a simple principle of providing the information first, and metadata second. The next revert I got was when I added one line from encyclopedia, which is a violation of copyright I guess, so rightly taken down. The only part of this which I found a little worrisome in this is the assumption some people made around intentions on the change. I read about the recent problem in the subcontinent pages and seems like it's a problem, but people need to be a little sensitive about individual being neutral as well. Thanks

Somebody who have made about a hundred edits to Mhowgaon and has an Indian user name, does have no idea about what this organisation is. Pigs might fly, as well .... ∯WBG^converse 12:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: So this place is no different than any other platform, where you make personal comment and bully people, your prejudice is appalling, great going man. @Doug Weller: @Kautilya3: Pinkeshsharma (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't discuss conduct on article talk pages. (At least I don't.) But it is clear that you are engaged in WP:ADVOCACY despite your protestations to the contrary. Three editors have disagreed with your edits. It is time to let it go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ill information of the RSS. The allegations are presented as facts.

The user Kautilya is biased. Please check his editing history as he continues to fail presenting a neutral perspective.

There are 2 factual error continuously presented by him. a) Accusing RSS of being paramilitary forced doesn't actually make them one. This is factual error. b) Although most members of BJP have come from RSS, that doesn't mean RSS is some kind of parent organisation that BJP reports to. I urge wiki moderators to read his articles and if possible ban him from editing future contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montysumit (talk • contribs) 09:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, refrain from making personal attacks. Secondly, those things are sourced. Come up with your own source, if you have problem with the current version of the article. We can have a talk then. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk Yes please discuss with me if you don't mind. Let three messages in talk pages including your page. Ajganguly (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Drafts on positions in the RSS

I've declined the recent pile of separate draft articles regarding RSS positions. About the only one that can have a notable separate list is the Sarsanghchalak, but even then there are only six people on that list. All other positions should be a redirect to this RSS article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well done AngusWOOF. I agree with your decisions -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

AngusWOOF I still find a lot of data on founders with quotes Ajganguly (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

AngusWOOF I still find a lot of data on founders with quotes that your own page wants removed. Please cut the fat and make it a line or two at the most. This page is too lengthy and seems to digress from the topic. Moreover the contents seem to malign the organisation and even my edit was reverted. Now I see page is locked. Bad for Wikipedia! Ajganguly (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Ajganguly Whose own page? We don't own article pages. And there is no way that an article on any political party is likely to be just praise. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller Doug I know a Wikipedia page may not be all praise but to malign an organisation can invite criminal penalty too. Just by referring a literature you can't create sanctity of it. Wikipedia needs to be alive. Just responded to Fylindfotberserk who was happy pointing that none contested the information so long. Law doesn't work by that logic. Can you justify holocaust just because the perpetrator's materials say it was justified? Do you quote them and feel you did justice to Wikipedia. :) Ajganguly (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is this article locked?

This note about vandalism that you put up must be the consequence of false and malicious attempt to show organisations and India in negetive light by quoting from negative propaganda material. When ever others and I tried to correct, some of your editors reverse that with an intent to slander India and its organisations. Please be fair and others will respect Wikipedia. Ajganguly (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ajganguly: you are new so you need to learn more about how Wikipedia works. I've posted a note on your talk page about assuming good faith, please read the link. I've had to change the section heading here because it doesn't meet the guideline at WP:TALKNEW. Your talk page also tells you that you will be able to edit semi-protected articles when you meet our minimum requirements. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Your very first edit removed information from the WP:LEAD on the basis that it was repeated in the article, but the lead is meant to summarise the article so of course material will be in the lead that's also in the article, although it doesn't need sources in the lead if they are in the body of the article. Additionally you removed information simply because you thought it was wrong. Our articles are meant to reflect what reliable sources say about a subject. If you have reliable sources that say the opposite bring them here for discussion. We also rely mainly on independent sources for our articles - people and organisations always want to present themselves in the best light possible so they aren't always the best sources to describe themselves. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller Sure Doug, this is a great approach and I appreciate that. Since am new I would need you to do a bit of hand holding here and there. If we can talk I can prove the negative propaganda and hope all of us will be glad that we are true to the cause of creative commons. -- Ajganguly (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Ajganguly, Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. You need to read those sources to see why the article is written in a certain way. Please refrain from voicing your own opinions. We have no interest in them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I think your reliable sources are biased. BTW, you said "refrain from voicing your own opinions. We have no interest in them." Please make it clear to me if you have any sort of rights on this article or you are the designated spokesperson of Wikipedia. Else your words are like blabel of kid!Ajganguly (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what "blabel of kid" is. But I have explained to you how Wikipedia works based on its policies, which have been provided to you in your welcome message. Please read them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for finding out the typo, it should have read "babel of kid"... Now you can understand it. But still you did not clarify if you have any sort of rights on this article or you are the designated spokesperson of Wikipedia. : Still keen to understand why BBC may not be a reliable source or maybe that the link below never came up on searches of the Hindu phobic :)

https://youtu(dot)be/e9EaisSQb9Q Please view and make appropriate change. Ajganguly (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List_of_Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh_members#Merger proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh_members. 122.171.183.51 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Sangh Prarthana, RSS Prarthana, Swayamsevak (RSS), Draft:Sarsanghchalak (RSS), Draft:Sah-Sarkaryawah (RSS), Draft:Sarkaryawah (RSS), Draft:Mukhya-Shikshak (RSS), Draft:Karyawah (RSS) and Draft:Gatanayak_(RSS) into Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. 122.171.183.51 (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose No reason provided for merger. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support There's no point in providing all these separate membership levels for the RSS group. This should be treated like an alumni list where it isn't separated by major or degree while in the school. Someone who ascends through several positions within the organization doesn't need to be specially noted in separate lists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note that several of the Drafts have been deleted because they were re-created and/or empty. Others are already redirects so they have nothing to merge. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Apart from the redirects, other drafts combined will add at best 2-3 lines. No need to have separate articles for those. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Qualified support - The positions can be listed, provided they are supported by reliable sources. But no lists of office-holders. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Those things should obviously not exist as separate articles, because there's insufficient material for them; but I don't see what material they contain that could be beneficial here, aside from the names of a couple of ranks within the organization. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Qualified support with reliable sources, and reasons for merger _EGGman⁶⁴ 14:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"Largest NGO in the world"

The intro currently states "With a membership of 5-6 million, RSS is the largest NGO in the world." – This is a quite a claim!

I think this is very spurious, and needs to be backed up by independent reputable sources directly comparing/listing NGOs and membership organisations internationally.

Whether this figure itself is accurate, and has been independently verified I shan't touch on.

But there are almost certainly larger organisations – in terms of membership numbers – out there in the world.

Just as a comparison, in the UK alone (which has a population 1/20 that of India) we have a number of membership organisations of a similar size. For example, the National Trust (5.6m members), the Co-op Group (4.6m active members, 8m+ total), and confederations like the National Union of Students (7m), the Trades Union Congress (5.6m) and Co-ops UK (10m+).

A cursory Google shows many reputable sources starting BRAC in Bangladesh as the largest NGO in the world – on the basis, for example – that they apparently employ ~100,000 workers.

I'm not sure if they can be counted as 'NGOs', but the Wikipedia list of political parties show 11 parties with 5m+ members. Some of these numbers are questionable but, for example, the Democratic Party in the US has 44m registered members.

This also touches on what we mean by NGO – which I understand to be a bit of a contested term. And how do we measure comparable sizes. Membership? Staff? Revenue?

Either way, I think to make such a massive claim it needs to be backed up by more significant, independent, reputable international sources showing some form of global consensus, and a solid explanation of methodology behind that claim...

Thoughts?

MikeJamesShaw (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted the silly claim. Thanks for raising it! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. An absurdity likely amplified by the dodgier of the Indian media outlets. It's possible the RSS meets some definition of "largest", but unless and until a source examines those definitions systematically, the claim ought not to be in the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Finally. I kept meaning to do something about this but never got around to it. User:Mikejamesshaw, thanks very much. But BRAC (organization) does seem to have one reliable source, the Economist. Also, there's something called "NGO Advisor" which we don't have an article on but is used frequently.[27] It doesn't include the RSS in its list of NGOs so far as I can see.[28] Doug Weller talk 13:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist organization

The current version of the article mentions that RSS is a terrorist organization, providing no source or arguments to back that up. There is not a single credible accusation of a terror attack against the RSS and is not blacklisted by any world organization either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffronreconquesta (talk • contribs) 07:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

RSS in not a terrorist organisation. Watisgoing (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

RSS is not a terrorist organisation Watisgoing (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no reference given in the wiki page for calling RSS a terrorist organisation. Dheeraj Akula (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Problematic edit reverted by other editor. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

42.111.29.180 (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
THE RSS IS A HINDUTVA TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

RSS MAIN GOAL IS IMPLEMENT THE HINDUTVA LAW AND ESTABLISH HINDU COUNTRY.

RSS MAIN AGENDA IS KILLING INNOCENT MINORITIES PEOPLE.

THIS IS A HINDU TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

On the page it is mentioned that RSS is a Hindu terrorist organization. The fact is that the Organization has been operating since 1925 as a selfless organization. The term "Hindu Terrorist" has no reference attached which proves that it is a terrorist organization. IF there are no references, please remove it. BlackSwastika (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Problematic edit reverted by other editor. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

RSS has it's own website and has the website itself doesn't states any absurd elements of militancy or terrorism

http://rss.org//Encyc/2012/10/22/rss-vision-and-mission.html

This is purely with respect to removal of the word "Hindu Terrorism" BlackSwastika (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Problematic edit reverted by other editor. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

False information on the main page.

RSS is NOT a Hindu terrorist organization. The very allegation is entirely false and is pure fantasy. These days some people have started maligning its image due to political intentions. They are a purely voluntary work organization ,that also trains people in self-defense. They themselves have a muslim wing called MRM - Muslim Rashtriya Manch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Rashtriya_Manch

Please rectify the misinformation PRONTO. RSS has done valuable service to all communities. This attempt at insulting them, will likely be received harshly by the Indian public and RSS themselves. Shashi dhar 177 (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Problematic edit reverted by other editor. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

RSS is a pro India right wing organization, it is shown as a "Hindu terror" organization which is misleading and highly bigoted, as changed by Ahmedfalah7711, Islamic terrorism is real and a threat to the world, Islamists have taken it on themselves to project RSS as a terrorist group and malign the image of Hindus. Please change Hindu terror to Pro Hindu/Pro India organization. Shree998 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Problematic edit reverted by other editor. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: "paramilitary" organization, and "National Patriotic Organisation"

on whether RSS is a "paramilitary" organization:

Definition: A paramilitary is a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, but is not formally part of a country's armed forces.

RSS is not semi-militarized in any way.

Any large scale organization such as any political party has an "organizational structure" that is "similar to those of a professional military" (meaning, it has a hierarchy, and ranks, and division of roles and responsibilities).

It is irresponsible and misleading to characterize RSS as a "paramilitary organization".

on translating RSS as "National Patriotic Organisation"

"swayamsevak" does not translate to "patriotic"

A closer translation is: "National Self-Reliance Organisation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.196.139 (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Removed "National Patriotic Organisation" Hello IP user. I agree on the patriotic org. it sppears to be incorrect and/or wP:FRINGE belief. accordingly I have removed it. more discussion and consensus will be needed to add it. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup, anybody with some knowledge of Hindi would understand that "National Patriotic Organisation" is an incorrect transliteration of the term "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, agree. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

News Source(s)

Hi DBigXray. I've removed the france24 source since it only uses the term " Hindu supremacist" explicitly for prime minister Modi's "agenda" and not for the RSS (not to violate WP:NOR). As for The Guardian, it is considered RS here, but also comes with a tag ..Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. I wonder should we use news sources at all for labelling considering the recent situation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, no objections. regards. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Shall I remove Guardian source, now that we have reliable books covering the Hindu supremacy part? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, No, I would suggest we keep this Guardian article. the coverage by Guardian is quite exhaustive and it will help to improve and exapnd the page. I understand your concerns but they are weak reasons to remove. Removing france24 is acceptable to me. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray I've added another book source here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, I am fine with this addition. thanks. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Thanks and welcome. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

One of the source says "such ideas of Hindu supremacy did not prevail", nothing like "RSS is Hindu supremacist". Other one talks about the "Pariwar" than singling out RSS when it says they are "advocating hindu religious supremacy". For a name, we have sources for saying "RSS is a paramilitary organization", but none for "RSS is Hindu supremacist". Avoid this WP:SYNTH. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Did not prevail "at the time of independence". If you read up to page 89, you get to the contemporary period. The rest of your post didn't make any sense to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like author was looking for the term "Hindu nationalist" given he has not used that term at all but used "Hindu supremacist" instead. The motives and activities which he has described on p.89 are exactly described by better sources such as Chetan Bhatt, Christophe Jaffrelot, and others but they use the term "Hindu nationalist". This is more about which term is more common. Unless we have got a scholarly source differentiating these two terms, we need to stick only to "Hindu nationalist". D4iNa4 (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This and this makes it clear, I believe. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Still, it is not providing a distinction between 'supremacist' and 'nationalist' when it comes to describing RSS. Do you have a source which provides a distinction between the two terms? Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 06:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think AKG is right. Putting both "Hindu nationalist" and "Hindu supremacist" next to each other in the lead sentence is not appropriate. I suggest we remove "Hindu supremacist" from here. It can be covered in the body with a bit more explanation. I also think we should not extrapolate from "supremacy" to "supremacist". The two mean very different things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, it does seem like WP:OR. Perhaps, it would be better to remove this "label". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I disagree. The argument that we must have scholarly sources differentiating the two terms has no basis in policy; the fact is that many sources use both "Hindu nationalist" to describe the organization, and "Hindu supremacy" to describe its ideology. I agree that the leap from "advocates Hindu supremacy" to "Hindu supremacist organization" would be OR if we're only using sources that use the former, but there, too, there's room for debate; a considerable number of sources use the latter term, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The policy is WP:LABEL. We can't use an uncommon term which clearly requires differentiation in order to find any independent mention. See White supremacy and White nationalism. They are two different concept. But here we see that both "Hindu nationalist" and "Hindu supremacist" has been used interchangeably. Compare your search with "Hindu nationalist" which has 10 times more mentions. You can also find mentions for Hindu fundamentalist, Hindu extremist and many other labels which are offering same description as "Hindu nationalist". There are many contenders but this is another reason why we should use the most common term as already explained above. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that policy. It says nothing at all about labels needing to be differentiated; only about them being used widely. The term "Hindu supremacy" is used in connection with the RSS by dozens of scholarly sources; the fact that their ideology is typically described as "Hindu nationalism" doesn't change that, because we're not seeking to replace the latter label at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that "supremacist" is not as widely accepted anywhere near "nationalist" but both terms echoes same definition in this context. I have removed it. The original edit was made without consensus anyway. Razer(talk) 16:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

RSS not a 'paramilitary' Volunteer Organisation

The Source of 'defining RSS as a 'paramilitary' Volunteer Organisation' is taken from the book 'The history of India' published by Greenwood Publishing Group'. in the aforesaid links, Its mentioned in glossary section that 'RSS : 'Hindu Paramilitary Organization; Part of Sangh Parivar'. Nothing more has been mentioned in the book that in which context it has been said or anything more about that.

Britannica says: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), (Hindi: “National Volunteer Organization”)also called Rashtriya Seva Sangh, organization founded in 1925 by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar (1889–1940), a physician living in the Maharashtra region of India, as part of the movement against British rule and as a response to rioting between Hindus and Muslims.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rashtriya-Swayamsevak-Sangh

In the book 'The RSS: A view to the inside' By walter K Andersen and Shridhar D Damle, published by Penguin Random House has never mentioned anywhere that RSS is Hindu Paramilitary Organization. It has mentioned The RSS is the most influential cultural organization in India today, with affiliates in fields as varied as politics, education and trade.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40959589-rss

https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/EEZdumMQdimVggYnH72quI/The-changing-faces-of-the-Sangh-parivar.html

Apart from that book, there is no reliable source to define RSS as a 'paramilitary' Volunteer Organisation' Nor any of the Indian government mentioned RSS as Paramilitary volunteer organisations. Its really strange to writer those things which every one knows it is false. It questions reliability of Wikipedia on some subjects. here is the list of Paramilitary forces of India

So, I don't think that defining RSS as a 'paramilitary' Volunteer Organisation' is correct.Divyam Seth (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a Google Books search for "RSS paramilitary". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, The book reference you gave does not say anywhere that it is a para-military organisation. What are you trying to say referring to that book? Santosh L (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Which "book" are you talking about? I did not give a link to a book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

there are different books Kautilya by different authors having different views. example : https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=rss . So it should be there in criticism part only. Because The same is not mentioned by GOI or RSS itself. I hope other editors will understand the facts and will make it a non biased article. Divyam Seth (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There is one source given in the lead, and 4-5 sources in the infobox. You need to see what they say. The fact that some sources don't say it is not an argument. I will be quite happy to create an entire section describing how RSS is paramilitary. Do you want that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No issue! Everyone is independent Divyam Seth (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what you mean by "Everyone is independent!" Divyam Seth? Are you pointing to my comment below? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Fylindfotberserk, Thanks for the comment but my reply was not for you, it was a reply to Kautilya3. He doesn't need my permission to create anything, nor anyone. Divyam Seth (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Divyam Seth: Oh.. OK. Thanks for the clarification. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Propose to move Right-wing, Para-military descriptions to criticism sections

In paragraph 1 ,

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, abbreviated as RSS (IAST: Rāṣṭrīya Svayamsevaka Saṅgha, IPA: [rɑːʂˈʈriːj(ə) sʋəjəmˈseːʋək ˈsəŋɡʱ], lit. "National Volunteer Organisation"[14]) is an Indian right-wing,[1] Hindu nationalist,[6][15] paramilitary[5] volunteer[2] organisation. The RSS is the progenitor and leader of a large body of organisations called the Sangh Parivar (the "family of the RSS"), which have presence in all facets of the Indian society. RSS was founded on 27 September 1925. As of 2014, it has a membership of 5–6 million.[16][10]

Request to remove "right-wing", "paramilitary" adjectives from the main description.

"Indian Right-wing", "paramilitary" descriptions are made by others, and not claimed by RSS itself or by the Government of India. It can be mentioned in criticism section. The website of RSS claims it is Hindu Nationalist, claims it is a volunteer organisation. Does not claim to be Right-wing, does not claim to be paramilitary.

In introduction we have to write the organisation's official stance when available and the stances proposed by others in criticism sections.

RSS has written the following on its view on military:-

The Sangh has often been misrepresented by its detractors, political or ideological, as having political motives or as a pare-military organisation.

"pare" is a typo in the reference website.

Santosh Satvik (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  Spintendo  13:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Santosh, I am agree with you, that should be move to criticism. Divyam Seth (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not an independent source, since it is coming from the RSS. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not debating whether it is or not. I am simply making sure that the organisation's official stance is present first and what other's say, later. When writing about a country, is Wikipedia going to write what's written in the country's constitution or is it going to write what an Independent source "writes" about what it thinks the country is?

Whether the organisation does what it says is not the point, we mention what an organisation's official stance is and then what others think about it. An Introduction must contain the official stance for the content to be called neutral. I am simply asking where is the organisation's official stance? I am simple seeing the Wikipedia contributor's and other's view on this organisation. Santosh L (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Please click the link for "independent" given by Fylindfotberserk. If you continue arguing along these lines, you will get cited for WP:CIR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Added new purpose "Hindu Fascism"

This is wrong. RSS is based on Hindutva Nationalism. But they never imposed anything. RSS has Muslim wing as well. Please remove the newly added "Fascism" word. The odd human (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

Want to change the purpose of RSS. The odd human (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

​You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y", citing reliable sources – Thjarkur (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Hindutva Facism. Purpose of RSS is Hindu Nationalist. The odd human (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Please change Hindutva Facism to Null The odd human (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Image removed

I have just removed a 1939 image that is connected to the work of Krant M L Verma. I know Verma published a multitude of historic images here, at Commons and in his books but he has been banned from several WMF projects for serial copyright violations & generally made absurd claims for the images he uploaded (eg: that he created the photograph or that it was in some public domain location that he was unwilling to divulge). We simply cannot take the chance when someone has been so deceptive and/or incompetent and, to be honest, I don't think we should trust his published words either as he has in the past been deceptive about his academic expertise also. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Change Hindu terrorist remark unless you have a citation where the Government of India or United nations has declared RSS as Hindu terrorist organization.legal action should follow against concerned vandaliser. Raman13p (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Problematic edit reverted by other editor. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Shashank5988, the RSS is routinely described as a terrorist organisation in reliable sources, including by academic journals and publishers. Is it the case that Wikipedia policy is to ignore such reliable sources if an organisation is not proscribed by certain specified bodies, such as the UN? I am confused because you appear to have used a stock response in multiple sections here.

Please be aware that (a) this and related artiles are infested with sockpuppets and (b) there is a massive off-wiki campaign going on to promote RSS values/image and denounce those of the minority Muslim community in India.

Judging by comments on your talk page over a period of time, do you think it sensible even to act in some sort of adjudication role here? Because I don't. Sitush (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, abbreviated as RSS (IAST: Rāṣṭrīya Svayamsevaka Saṅgha, IPA: [rɑːʂˈʈriːj(ə) sʋəjəmˈseːʋək ˈsəŋɡʱ], lit. "National Volunteer Organisation"[14]) is an Indian right-wing,[1] Hindu nationalist,[6][15] volunteer[2] organisation Ninjamani (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So, having achieved removal of terrorist, which is easily sourced, you now want removal of paramilitary,which is also sourced? Is this article going to end up saying that the RSS is akin to the Sisters of Mercy? Anyone who reviews this, please note my earlier comment here today regarding socks and off-wiki canvassing - there is a concerted attempt to sanitise the article.- Sitush (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Next thing we know, there will be claims that Doris Day was a supporter. The paramilitary issue has been raised above on this page several times - please give it a rest and stop meatpuppeting. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Paramilitary Organisation

I think there is a fair bit of bias in this article. While I would agree that RSS is a nationalistic, right-wing organisation, I think it is a far reach, in fact outright incorrect, to call it "paramilitary". As per the Wikipedia page paramilitary, it is defined as "a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, but is not formally part of a country's armed forces". While the RSS parade in uniforms, and train with lathi/batons, and have a hierarchical organisational structure- I think the closest comparison would be to Boy Scouts- which everyone would agree is not a paramilitary organisation. The bias I see in the referencing articles are an attempt to equate RSS to actual paramilitary fundamentalist organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA- who do handle weapons, engage in direct military conflict, and fit the definitions above. Some would argue that there are so-and-so many reference to RSS being paramilitary, and use this as justification for keeping the definition, but I would say that in itself is a form of bias. If so, can mention "accusations of paramilitary" in section for "Controversies", but by having it as a formal description in the first few sentences makes this a biased article.2001:8004:15A0:4F9:E9AD:D7B9:C288:A76D (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please read the reliable sources that have been cited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not paramilitary organisation Watisgoing (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

RSS is definitely not a paramilitary organisation. would anyone call YMCA a paramilitary organisation? sounds as stupid. (BharatNN (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

If people are just going to keep appearing here, making comments that ignore our WP:V policy using apparently throwaway accounts and most likely reacting to off-wiki shit-stirring by nutcases such as the editor of the blacklisted fake news OpIndia parody of a news source, then this talk page will end up being protected to stop your disruption. You are welcome to disagree with the article but please read WP:TPG & WP:V first because comments here that are not based on policy are just a waste of your time. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Cultural organisation

RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) is cultural organisation. One of it's work is serve the people of India. This organization is in many countries to serve those countries. When any disaster come this organization come unite and helps the needy. Prakalp Up (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read my post of an hour or two ago in the section above titled Paramilitary Organisation. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"RSS Prarthana" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect RSS Prarthana. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 26#RSS Prarthana until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of unreliable source from bibliography

I feel that the following source "Puniyani, Ram (2005), Religion, Power and Violence: Expression of Politics in Contemporary Times, SAGE" should be removed from the bibliography given that the author is an activist, without a degree in Politics or the like and there are far better sources already listed. TSAray (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

SAGE is a well-respected academic publisher, and the book is used as a reference in the article; I see no reason at all to remove it. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit: has been cited in other workds so I guess it is fine. TSAray (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

The word "paramilitary" should be removed from the introduction to the text, and from the table to the right of the page under "Type".

The organisation might have had such origins, but the time when the organisation was formed were different times from the current world scenario. The activities of the organisation are mostly humanitarian, politically-motivated or simply intended to encourage Hindus to embrace their ages-old culture and traditions. Though all of it has been mentioned in the text later on, the mention of the world paramilitary early on has a polarising effect on the reader and is unjust. 117.239.210.100 (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

See above discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

My edit was reverted

SerChevalerie, you reverted my edit without even specifying. I had deleted the word paramilitary from the page, since the source cited was a book's glossary. That cannot certainly be considered reliable. i have for the meantime reverted your revert. If you have some evidence to show that the book source formerly mentioned is reliable, feel free to revert my edit. Parlebourbon3 (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Parlebourbon3, this discussion has been had here multiple times before. You will have to seek WP:CONSENSUS for this change. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Odisha Violence

Hello everyone. As I was reading through the article for interest, I followed the link in the Odisha Violence heading to the main page of the article. To my surprise, there was no mention of the RSS being involved in the violence. Further research confirmed this, and it seems that someone may have made an error. I'm a fairly new Wikipedian, so I am a bit unsure of the protocol regarding such a situation. Can I simply remove the content? I thought it would be more polite and methodical to leave a message here though.

John.k.newton (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@John.k.newton: Hey there, this isn't a subject area I know anything about, but I notice some mention of the RSS in this March 2020 version of the article, and some of it was removed in these edits by Suneye1, who I'm sure had a good rationale. So you might want to open a discussion at Talk:Religious violence in Odisha, {{ping}} Suneye1 and see what's up there. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'll go there first and come back if changes should be made. I know a bit about the RSS but not enough to know the intricacies of every single instance of communal violence they've been involved in. Will get back to you and update.

John.k.newton (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

In the First sentence REMOVE THE WORD & REFERENCE: paramilitary[5]

Justification of request: No Fire-Arm or combat Training is provided to volunteers hence it can not be termed as Paramilitary organization

Physical Training & exercise & sports etc. (without any fire arms) can't be termed as Paramilitary Training.

The Training of few in ancestral combat sports and Discrete Ceremonial display etc. (e.g. even Olympics has archery, sword, javelin etc.) also can't be Paramilitary Training

Most important:

1. ARTICLE DON'T PROVIDE ANY examples of paramilitary activities carried out by organization, because factually there are none

2. Such mischievous adjectives in the article are used for politically & internationally defaming the organization Improve efficiency (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Edit requests are for uncontroversial changes only. You should discuss your proposal with other editors in another section on this talk page first. You should be prepared to provide reliable sources to support your changes. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 16:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357 (talk · contribs) Support the removal of word 'paramilitary'. A paramilitary is an informal armed force or militia. The RSS does not fit that description --Sahir 18:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

RSS provides paramilitary training. Although, it might not include firearms but they provide training for other weapons. So, they are a paramilitary organization. Harold Saxon619 (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020

Nagesh P M (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Saffron Terror

Adding the issue of SAFFRON Terror being attributed to RSS ought to be mentioned in the Criticism headinh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sybelljohnsajan (talk • contribs) 07:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not attributed to RSS, but rather to some splinter groups. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Merely a maintenance of plausible deniability.2601:140:8900:61D0:6169:9532:104A:AC9F (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like this could be explained in a NPV, but still mentioned. ~"Members of the RSS were implicated in the Saffron Terror, but the RSS has maintained this was done by splinter groups and has not claimed credit for these attacks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.109.5 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

European "Right-wing" Groups during WW2

I would agree that the European fascists are right-wing, but I think this is an extreme euphemism. If the RSS was inspired by fascists, this must be clearly stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.109.5 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

New comments belong at the bottom of the page, which I have fixed for you, and you need to sign your comments with four tildes like ~~~~, which will append your signature and time stamp so that people know who said what, and when. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

paramilitary or martial arts

@Olden Creed: although the members practice some form of martial arts but that doesn't negate the fact that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is a paramilitary organization who usually are armed with weapons(legal). And if you are who I think you are then "paramilitary organization" is not a derogatory term. Thanks -- Eatcha 22:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, 'paramilitary' is sourced and is the WP:CONSENSUS version. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what kind of "weapons( legal)" are we talking about in this context. Deskman2021 (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Jaffrelot

Jaffrelot has been mentioned inline eleven times in this article. A bit too much maybe? DTM (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could have an article on this— Jaffrelot on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. jk DTM (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, by greatful that there is in fact a Jaffrelot. If not for him, we would know very little about the RSS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Section of RSS

I want to acknowledge that I have added important content in the article of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and is challenged by Kautilya3. HindusforNepal (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What in this edit is supposed to be important? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Right wing word should be removed

RSS is not a Right wing party but a very secular NGO only working for upliftment of the people through welfare and education — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.38.229 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The descriptor is supported by the cited high-quality academic source:

• Johnson, Matthew; Garnett, Mark; Walker, David M (2017), Conservatism and Ideology, Routledge, p. 77, ISBN 978-1-317-52899-9, retrieved 25 March 2021, A couple of years later, India was ruled by the Janata coalition, which consisted also of Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), the then-political arm of the extreme right-wing Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS – National Volunteers Organisation).

Extreme right-wing is a synonym for far-right, and is more than sufficient to establish that the RSS is right-wing. — Newslinger talk 01:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

:* Support for removal of word - Right wing and left wing are western concepts which are being forced by western intellectuals on Indian organizations. Neither RSS not organiztions in Sangh pariwar accept this concepts. As far as BJP goes, it accepts Integral Humanism philosophy coined by Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay (See this). But it seems you guys are not listening or don't want to listen! ---256Drg (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources, not the editors' opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist Organization

I have heard the RSS described as a terrorist organization many times. Why has this accusation not been aired in this article? The case against them being considered a terrorist organization can be given as well per NPV, but they have been designated a terrorist organization by the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium (Source: https://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-rssbut), and this is a common criticism of the RSS in the international press. This accusation appears to have been made in one of the references but not mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.109.5 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

India doesn't designate them. FDW777 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: Hi there, so the OP doesn't get confused, can you please clarify your response slightly? Are you just pointing out an incidental fact a fact that India doesn't designate them a terrorist group, or are you arguing that because India doesn't designate them as a terrorist organisation, that they should not be designated a terrorist organisation? Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Edited to strike out incidental fact. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't consider it an "incidental fact" that India doesn't designate, but I think it's quite telling that the Indian government, who do maintain a list of groups they designate as terrorists, don't designate RSS. The claimed reference above (the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium website) links to a completely blank page on Firefox and Chrome, if there's some other browser that displays a page please advise. The IP has provided no references at all for any of their claims, other than the non-working website. FDW777 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"Incidental fact" stricken from above. My concern is that we are not relying on a government to designate a group as a "terrorist organisation", because I can envision scenarios where a paramilitary organisation is doing the bidding of the controlling party/dictator/whatever, where independent observers might have different opinions about the work the group does. FYI, the OP submitted a malformed URL. I believe they meant to point to https://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-rss. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we rely solely on governments, but as said the IP didn't provide much in the way of references. I'm only at this page because of a disruptive attempt to add them at List of designated terrorist groups claiming they were designated by India, when they aren't. Many thanks for the TRAC reference, but in my opinion it's next to useless. Unless there's something in the premium section (more on that shortly) all it does is reference some minor background details. That TRAC choose to have a page on RSS is next to meaningless, it's in their interests to have a page on as many groups as possible. If you have information on 50 groups I doubt many people will pay to subscribe. But according to Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium they had pages on 3,800 groups (as of 2012, I have little doubt that's increased now), so people are more likely to subscribe.

I've skimmed through this article and found next to nothing that even talks about them using any tactics that might be considered terrorism. No mention of bombings, kidnappings, murders (with the exception of Gandhi in 1948!). There's some details about involvement in riots and similar violence at Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh#Criticisms and accusations. British and Indian opinion seems to disagree with the IP. Obviously per WP:NPOV we'd need to include the contrary opinion if it exists in reliable references, but I've yet to see any evidence they exist. And if it is to be included, it would definitely need to be attributed to those that hold the opinion. FDW777 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you for your thoughtful response. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not quite telling at all. After all, RSS is part of the Hindutva, like the Bharatiya Janata party of Narendra Modi. It would be very surprising if they bit their own leg by calling the RSS or any other Hindutva outlet a terrorist organization. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

RSS is not a terrorist organization. Reliable sources do not indicate that it is a terrorist organization.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

157.43.219.182 (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The RSS is an anti-country organization. During the British rule, they acted on behalf of the British

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edit in the introduction

I suggest the removal of the line "On several occasions it has been banned by the Indian government, for its alleged role in communal violence." from the introduction as it appears to be redundant information, as, the exact reasons as well the years when the organization was banned has been mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Skeptical Sapien (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Skeptical Sapien: Came here to say the same. I'll remove the sentence, it is indeed redundant. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 05:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

The beginning of the lede should be changed to: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (abbr. RSS; Hindi: राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ, IAST: Rāṣṭrīya Svayamsevaka Saṅgha, Hindi pronunciation: [raːʂˈʈriːj(ə) swəjəmˈseːʋək səŋɡʱ], lit. 'National Volunteer Organisation') is an Indian .... etc

The two commas currently present before and after the text in brackets (containing pronunciation and translation) are superfluous. Other Wikipedia articles don't have them e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangh_Parivar

There is also a missing space after "abbr." 91.198.89.196 (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist group, military wing of fascist cult hindooism

errorist group, military wing of fascist cult hindooism 157.32.197.134 (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Newslinger talk 11:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Inspired by nazi hitler party not by Italian right wing party

Inspired by nazi hitler party not by Italian right wing party 2409:4041:6E15:8306:2480:B693:4194:561D (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 11:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it a fact that rss don't celebrate shivjayanti?

I am shocked to learn that rss don't celebrate chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj jayanti. Please intimate the real position on this issue. 103.139.70.240 (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Fake news I guess, they do celebrate [29] Amitized (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sectarian attacks in recent years (including 2020 and 2021) not adequately covered

There are no mentions of armed RSS attacks on the Muslim and Christian communities in 2020 and 2021 (or indeed any RSS violence in the last dozen years, but 2020 and 2021 are what I could find news sources for (The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Crux, and The Shillong Times). Since coverage of past RSS violence is split between the Reception subsection of History and the Involvement with riots subsection of Reception, I'm not sure where to put those, or whether a separate section about sectarian attacks by the RSS (somewhere to be decided) is warranted. Opinions welcome. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are mere allegations. Same issue is with a sub section that is titled "Involvement in Babri Masjid demolition" - now last sentence in that section says 'The ban was subsequently lifted in 1993 when no evidence of any unlawful activity was found by the tribunal constituted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.'

Classic case of using allegation as a label. I propose the name of the sub section to be changed to "Allegations in Babri masjid case" or just "Babri masjid" or move it to another section because this allegation has no substance and proved in court of law. Amitized (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2022

The RSS never supported the British government. The RSS was formed due to the moderate approach of Congress in fighting the British Rule. Infact, RSS was against the idea of foreigners ruling the country. RSS launched thousands of protests against the British govt and many swayamsewaks were martyred. The people who edited this page is using their access to spread their propaganda 5.107.144.79 (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 14:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

Ggp192 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

There are rumors that Sourabh Pawar from Atpadi currently padalkar wing is set to join RSS .

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Godsa is not rss when gandhi killed

Ok 5.245.249.245 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation 229 Link

The link directs to “Not Found” site. 47.151.128.79 (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation number 229 in the "Refernces" section, displayed as → Dixit, Kapil (21 February 2020). "Muslim students in UP's RSS schools rise 30% in 3 years". The Times of India. Retrieved 31 October 2020 is fine. This is the link → here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my edit on allegations on bombings

@Vanamonde93 The reason you gave for reverting my edit is " If a reliable source gives any credence to the allegations, then inclusion may be appropriate." What do you mean by reliable sources? Can you give an example when will the inclusion become appropriate? (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC))

@Libreravi: Reliable sources are described in detail at WP:RS. In this case, we need reliable sources seriously examining the allegations themselves, not just reporting on an allegation. Politicians and other prominent figures make allegations about each other all the time, with no regard to truth or neutrality; including every sound-byte they produce isn't reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

Hello,

Kindly remove : Under 'war time activities' the article currently states " Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was impressed with the help extended and allowed the RSS to field a contingent of 100 swayamsevaks in the 1963 Republic Day Parade."

However, per a Right to Information request submitted by the Indian newspaper India Today, the Union Govt. of India has no record of the Republic Day Parade composition or of the RSS being a part of it.

The links given in support as citation in the current article also do not provide any material evidence for the claim.

Could you kindly remove the current text or have the following as an alternative text:

There are claims that the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was impressed with the help extended and allowed the RSS to field a contingent of 100 swayamsevaks in the 1963 Republic Day Parade. However, per a Right to Information request submitted by the Indian newspaper India Today, the Union Govt. of India has no record of the Republic Day Parade composition or of the RSS being a part of it.

Thanks! Sparrowtongue (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2022 (2)

Change https://m.timesofindia.com/city/allahabad/muslim-students-in-ups-rss-schools-rise-30-in-3-years/articleshowprint/74234292.cms to https://m.timesofindia.com/city/allahabad/muslim-students-in-ups-rss-schools-rise-30-in-3-years/amp_articleshow/74234292.cms

The link for reference number 229 is expired the correct link is: https://m.timesofindia.com/city/allahabad/muslim-students-in-ups-rss-schools-rise-30-in-3-years/amp_articleshow/74234292.cms Neeraj00x (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The old link appears to work (as does the new one). Perhaps there was a temporary glitch when you tried it?--RegentsPark (comment) 23:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. The old version was print preview, this should have been mentioned. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

NPOV dispute badly needed!

This article goes out of its way to whitewash an organization that was openly fascist from its founding. There is not a single mention of the Jammu massacre of 1947 in which RSS activists "played a key role", and in which up to 100,000 Muslims were killed, according to Wikipedia. Direct links to, and praise for, Mussolini and Hitler are glossed over with: "However, the RSS's stance changed during the war." It changed because the fascists were losing the war. (I edited the header with "...badly needed!" after noticing that this article is protected.) 42.98.65.37 (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This can be included as long as it is reliably sourced. Unfortunately, the 1947 Jammu massacres article does not offer a source reliably confirming RSS's involvement in the massacres – the only two sources quoted, both by the same author, are a PhD thesis and a passing mention of "RSS and others" in a book chapter. If you are able to provide good sourcing, please feel free to propose here an exact wording for inclusion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 02 January 2023

Please remove Hinduism template under Motivations section. On one hand this article describe the organization as fascist organization on the hand it has added Hinduism template. Sidebars are navigation templates. A sidebar's function is to help readers navigate across articles listed inside it, not to serve as an aesthetic piece for articles which are related to, but which do not focus on elements of, its primary topic. Bottom line, if the sidebar doesn't mention the article, best not to add it because it disrupts other elements in the article body, such as images, infoboxes, tables, etc. 2405:201:800B:684F:C9A1:4C48:8BF6:55E9 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now. You'll need consensus for this edit.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The RSS has created the Vishva Hindu Parishad and spearheaded the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. It is now a "Hindu" movement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

RSS and Sanskritization

I don't know whether Sanskritisation (i.e. the adoption of upper caste sensibilities and practices such as vegetarianism and rituals by ritually lower ranked castes) of Hindu castes and tribes is a stated aim of the RSS or not, but their work with the lower castes and adivasi communities certainly points towards that.I believe this topic deserves a section in the article.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Needs sourcing, just like their entire approach to the caste system would do. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Correction on Nathuram Godse's RSS membership

In the opening section's last paragraph, the word "erstwhile" should be removed -

"The RSS was banned in 1947 for 4 days, and then thrice by the post-independence Indian government, first in 1948 when Nathuram Godse, an erstwhile member of RSS, assassinated Mahatma Gandhi".

There is plenty of evidence from historical records that Nathuram Godse never left the RSS including the research by scholar Dhirendra Jha. In fact the reference link (number 27) for this sentence already refers to Nathuram's brother Gopal's statement about him never leaving the RSS, "—Venugopal, Vasudha (8 September 2016). 'Nathuram Godse never left RSS, says his family'. The Economic Times." Netizenwikifact (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

Should the RSS be categorized as anti-semitic because of their praise and association with anti-semitic groups? A couple of their members were even anti-semites themselves if I remember correctly. Firekong1 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

How can you label whole group as "X" if a couple of their members are "X". If a couple of muslims are terrorists then this doesn't mean muslims are terrorists.

Can you describe exactly how the RSS is associated with anti-semitism ?

plus could you refer to me couple of unbiased sources from which you drew/concluded this statement. DLord36 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Considering the rss's ideological alignment with that of jews against muslims and bjp government forming new heights in India Israel relationship , it's not a good idea unless we have some good and fresh souces and not one editor's memory.

u DLord36 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

No, unless antisemitism would be their official party line – which it is not. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources of funding for RSS and the Sangh parivar

Is RSS registered under any law in India .Also what are the sources of funding to RSS 86.7.110.4 (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of legal status the RSS has but a number of the RSS affiliated Sangh parivar organizations that provide social welfare services such as schools or dister relief are funded through local philanthrophy, or from donations by the Hindu supporters overseas. With increasing privatization of welfare services in India, the government has also been a source of funding for these organizations in the 21st century.

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

I would like to make a minor correction regarding the history of the organisation. Twisted Wizard IS the BOSS (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Type should be ‘Extreme right-wing’

Under ‘Type’ the organisation is labelled as ‘Right-wing’. However, the supporting citation mentions it as being ‘Extreme right-wing’. Suggestion for the wording to be updated to reflect the correct nature of the organisation as per the supporting citation. Editor2023b (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to "far right" if supported by sources; however, I'd prefer to reserve "extreme right" for extremist organisations, ones that appeal mostly to violence, like Shiv Sena, etc. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The "type" parameter is for type of organization (nonprofit, NGO, etc.), not for its beliefs. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Change 'Second ban and acquittal'

Pls add:

The RSS has consistently denied any connection with Godse. It has maintained that Godse "left RSS in the mid-1930s". However, Nathuram Godse's brother Gopal Godse stated that all the Godse brothers were members of the RSS at the time of the assassination and blamed the RSS for disowning them. The other members of the Godse family too have denied that he ever left the RSS. "He remained a boudhik karyawah till his death."

AND

Nehru led Congress government did not allow Nathuram Godse to present his side in the court. His speech and thoughts were never published and broadcast by media. Fierce Phoenix (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

RSS is a terrorist organisation

The lead of the article should begin RSS is a right wing Hindutva terrorist organisation.183.82.127.28 (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's an umbrella group, so while it might contain have subordinate groups that have been classified as 'terrorist', that would be a hard label to ever assign with any degree of conviction to the diverse web of organizations that is the RSS. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not generally describe the RSS as a terrorist group; indeed I can't think of any that describes the RSS in its entirety as a terrorist group. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

As few if any sources support such a label for RSS, we follow MOS:TERRORIST. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

SO many references: (sharing 4 for now)

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/rss-linked-to-terrorist-activities

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40278200

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/ban-rss-india-s-no-1-terror-organisation-former-maharashtra-cop/story-EqYMsbzYbhDOtNgocROfNM.html

https://southasia.ucla.edu/history-politics/hindu-rashtra/nathuram-godse-rss-murder-gandhi/ 183.82.127.28 (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

None of these sources reliably establish the RSS as a terrorist organisation. The 3rd source only quotes a retired official who's called it so, but this as far from an academic consensus as possible.

There's no doubt that the RSS has at times inspired or encouraged actions that can be easily labelled as terrorism. However, this does not turn the RSS itself into a terrorist organisation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There are obviously strong connections. The second source above sums it up well in the first six paragraphs. But no, despite the RSS' obvious intolerance of and rhetoric against India's largest religious minority, simply spreading hate (and even at times having terror-committing members) is still far from the organization as a whole being terrorist. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Have a good read of MOS:TERRORIST again. Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. You will need to show that reliable sources widely RSS a terrorist organisation and cant get away with odd news stories which in their report state that somewhere , someone has called it a terrorist organisation. Razer(talk) 08:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

SURE!! time will come god is watching dear! 183.82.127.28 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please provide adequate, respectable sources proving that RSS is a terrorist organization. And please, don't quote anything affiliated with congress, especially during the emergency. Bharat was essentially a dictatorship during the emergency. Fierce Phoenix (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no way that you can reliably say that RSS is a terrorist organization. And besides you look at it from hatred and only despair, to say the least. The above citations are taken from NDTV, which goes out of its way to attack RSS. Hence, no way you can add this line and in no way is it acceptable. Science nerd11112007 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Attitude towards jew

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1177608662

"@GoutComplex have added stating in summary view towards jews."

I haven't found anything about anti-jews in RSS. Please change it. Most of the sources says RSS idolize Hitler and their members have anti Islam views. 150.129.164.139 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The RSS is not a paramilitary organisation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paramilitary_organizations

The RSS bears no resemblance to any organisation on this list. India has seven paramilitary organisations under the Central Armed Police Forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Armed_Police_Forces

The RSS has no history of regular combat operations and has no organisation along military/ paramilitary lines. 24.239.134.31 (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023

I want to edit this page Musicalartist071 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. 💜  melecie  talk - 06:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Text written can be misleading

there is no proper evidence of origination of RSS from fascist ideas it is just a Hindu organization not meant to do anti Muslim but to do justice for hindhu people in India (just participating in religious activities)kindly remove such phrases which could be misleading,thank you. Kraa45 (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See the reliable sources cited in the article, including:

• Atkins, Stephen E. (2004). Encyclopedia of modern worldwide extremists and extremist groups. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 264–265. ISBN 978-0-313-32485-7. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
• Casolari, Marzia (2000). "Hindutva's Foreign Tie-Up in the 1930s: Archival Evidence". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (4): 218–228. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4408848.
• McDonald, Ian (1 December 1999). "'Physiological Patriots'?: The Politics of Physical Culture and Hindu Nationalism in India". International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 34 (4). Sage Journals: 343–358. doi:10.1177/101269099034004003. ISSN 1012-6902. S2CID 144111156.
• Natrajan, Balmurli (2009). "Searching for a Progressive Hindu/ism: Battling Mussolini's Hindus, Hindutva, and Hubris". Tikkun. 24 (5). Duke University Press: 58–61. doi:10.1215/08879982-2009-5024. ISSN 2164-0041. S2CID 171206784.

— Newslinger talk 09:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

Please remove the words far right 193.11.110.59 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please get consensus for this removal. RegentsPark (comment) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Social Service to the lead

While RSS has been criticised for being extremist, it has provided critical services during major disasters, as mentioned in the body also. In order to give a non-biased perspective, their humanitarian acts must be mentioned in the lead also. Smart Sherlock (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Image of the new uniform

Please add the image of the new RSS uniform below the old so one can distinguish. Attaching a link to the image that can be used:

https://m.economictimes.com/thumb/height-450,width-600,imgsize-594641,msid-59087957/in-sangh-country-25-days-914-men-and-full-brown-pants.jpg 2409:40C4:1002:CEF2:B0E8:F82F:F54E:5440 (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Article fully protected

(pinging potentially involved editors: @CapnJackSp:@Brusquedandelion:@M.Bitton:@TrangaBellam:@Kautilya3:@Vanamonde93:@Gaia Octavia Agrippa:@Gotitbro:)

Due to ongoing disruption happening over the last several days on this article by multiple editors, I have placed full protection on this article under Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIPA. I am not accusing any one editor of being in the wrong, or suggesting any editor is in the right. I am saying that continuing edit wars is highly disruptive and will not be tolerated. I chose the least painful option here. Everyone is strongly encouraged to engage in discussion to achieve consensus for changes on this contentious topic. Three days from now, I will reduce the full protection back to the indefinite ECP protection placed by User:El C in April of 2021. If disruption continues my next course of action will be to block involved editors from editing this article. I hope I've been clear. If I have not, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW I'm stepping away from this dispute for the moment. There's far too much effort being spent above on which editor said what, and on forum-style argument, and far too little on identifying some good sources and summarizing them. If I find some time I may make an effort to do so myself at some point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

(re-pinging potentially involved editors to make clear about next steps: @CapnJackSp:@Brusquedandelion:@M.Bitton:@TrangaBellam:@Kautilya3:@Vanamonde93:@Gaia Octavia Agrippa:@Gotitbro:)

I have reduced the protection on this article from full back to the original extended confirmed access protection level. I remind all editors that this article is under WP:ARBIPA restrictions as a contentious topic. Any resumption of edit warring on this article will result in the responsible editors being blocked from this article. Continuing the edit warring as before is not an option moving forward. I hope I've been clear. If I have not been clear, by all means ask me. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT

The Mission section is currently written against Wikipedia guidelines. I am going to rename this section "Ideology" and rewrite it, incorporating some of the discussion above re: the organization's relation to Fascism, but of course also incorporating discussion of other topics related to their ideology and goals in secondary (and tertiary) sources, while trimming the obviously self-promotional, primary source content that presently forms the basis of this section. If people want to contribute to this, feel free to reply below with suggestions (for sources, wording, etc.). Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

For the moment, I have indented the Mission header one level, placed it under Ideology, and moved the two paragraphs of the Reception section that discussed similarities with Fascism into this Ideology section, under the subheading Comparisons with Fascism. Brusquedandelion (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated inspirations from European Fascism

I have removed this fragment of a sentence from the lead:

Drawing its inspiration from European fascist movements and groups such as the Italian Fascist Party,

References

As per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarise the body, and there is nothing about this in the body. So, this is against policy in the first place. Moreover, this particular passage has a chequered history.

• When I first came to the page, it had something like this. we see Darkness Shines, copy-editing the "drawing inspiration from European right-wing groups during WW II". The source cited "Atkins2004" is not an RS by Wikipedia norms. (Only signed articles in Encyclopedias are reliable sources.) Nevertheless, all that the source says is, "During World War II, leaders of the RSS were open admirers of Adolf Hitler." That is a factual statement, but doesn't imply "drawing inspiration". The actual quote, from Golwalkar, does say, "a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by," which might suggest drawing inspiration. But we need a scholarly source criticially examining whether such inspiration was actually drawn in practice. Hindutva was written in 1923, which Hedgewar read in the same year. RSS was started in 1925. Both were well ahead of WW II. So, this particular source says nothing about RSS having been created with inspiration from "European Fascism".

Three more sources have since been added. So I look at each of them in turn. First, some general remarks about Moonje and Savarkar, both of whom show up in all three papers. Moonje was no doubt a political patron of Hedgewar. He was a member of Congress as well as Hindu Mahasabha. Savarkar was still in prison when RSS was started, but his brother Ganesh Savarkar, a Hindu Mahasabha member, was also a patron of the RSS. See the section Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh#Hindu Mahasabha influence. But the problem is, once RSS started, it became entirely independent. The Hindu Mahasabha patrons wanted it to be named "Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh", and for it to be the youth wing of Hindu Mahasabha. Hedgewar understood that and made sure that they couldn't exert any influence on it. What was more, he groomed Golwalkar as his successor, precisely because he thought he would be able to resist their pressure unlike the other more experienced RSS functionaries. (This is well-documented in the sources, and I can add content to the main page if necessary.) So, the claim that the Europenan Fascists exerted their influence on the RSS through Moonje and Savarkar doesn't fly.

• Casolari is talking about a lot of stuff, but very little about RSS. "An accurate search of the primary sources produced by the organisations of Hindu nationalism, as well as by their opponents and by the police, is bound to show the extent and the importance of the connections between such organisations and Italian fascism". "Bound to show"? Hardly scholarly. Further she claims that people like Jaffrelot, Basu etc. didn't know what they were dealing with because they were "political scientists", not "historians". Well, Jaffrelot has studied 50 years of history of RSS, and cites hundreds of citations to primary sources like Organiser and government reports as well as other people that wrote about RSS affairs. He doesn't agree that RSS was inspired by European Fascism. He traces all the elements of RSS ideology to events and influences within India. Casolari does talk extensively about Moonje and Savarkar. As explained above, they are irrelevant.
• MacDonald claims, "V. D. Savarkar, who is generally credited with defining the Hindu nationalist project, openly admired the fascist Mazzini and his 'Young Italy' organization". Yes, Mazzini's influence on Savarkar is well-acknowledged, but Mazzini (1805–1872) is from an earlie era, and it is odd to call him a "fascist". Mazzini argued for Italian integration, and he can be called a cultural nationalist. But "fascism" wasn't born in his time. Other than this, there are a lot of parallels drawn in this paper, but nothing that can be called an "influence".
• Natrajan debunks his own theory in the very first paragraph by quoting Moonje: "In his diary Moonje wrote: “The idea of fascism vividly brings out the conception of unity amongst people. India and particularly Hindu India need some such institution for the military regeneration of the Hindus.... Our institution of Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh of Nagpur under Dr. Hedgewar is of this kind, though quite independently conceived." Independently conceived. End of story.

These are just a bunch of Eurocentric scholars who want to claim that only the Europeans knew how to bake bread. Vande Mataram was written in the 1870s. Vivekananda was lecturing in Chicago in 1893. Who knows, may the Indians taught the Europeans cultural nationalism? I hope I don't have to see this kind of nonsense again on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is overwhelmingly your WP:OR (with a sprinkling of WP:SYNTH). Wikipedia articles report on what reliable sources say, not how we interpret those sources. The reality is the claim you removed is extremely well-cited, and there are an abundance of other sources that we could happily add to the article that would agree on this point, but it would just result in citation bloat. Unfortunately, this is often what happens with article subjected to tendentious editing by parties that have biased views on the subject matter, but if we need to do this for your satisfaction, let us know and we will discuss. Also:

Vande Mataram was written in the 1870s. Vivekananda was lecturing in Chicago in 1893. Who knows, may the Indians taught the Europeans cultural nationalism? I hope I don't have to see this kind of nonsense again on Wikipedia.

Besides (again) being WP:SYNTH (and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS), these facts are actually irrelevant. The Indian independence movement and Indian nationalism more broadly are not synonymous with RSS, and in fact, as the article notes, the RSS played at best an ambiguous role in the independence movement. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This isnt OR, its called analysing sources. Just because someone put it in a paper doesnt make it the gospel, we can analyse their work and reject them as a source if it is of poor quality.
Also, please dont revert changes citing "stable version", the lead's stable version was significantly different from the wording used. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not analysing the "sources". I am analysisng the content which is not verified by the sources. None of these sources has said RSS was inspired by the European Fascist movements. The claim was made up by editors. That is called WP:OR. It is also a common misconception. The article body explicitly contradicts it citing high-quality scholars that have studied RSS and Hindutva. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you absolutely are "analyzing" the sources (or attempting to, anyways, but your success at doing so is necessarily beyond the scope of discussion here). You are pointing out what you think are apparent contradictions, or shoddy scholarly work (e.g. when you sarcastically remark Hardly scholarly), or straight up challenging the conclusions of the text (for example, where you dispute that Mazzini was a Fascist). The fact is numerous reliable sources concur: the RSS drew inspiration from Fascist movements, as attested to even by the very quotes you yourself have so helpfully aggregated for us above. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This isnt OR, its called analysing sources. Just because someone put it in a paper doesnt make it the gospel, we can analyse their work and reject them as a source if it is of poor quality.

Sorry, but that's exactly how Wikipedia defines OR. I suggest you revise that page to better understand what original research is— and I also suggest checking out WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Your friend Kautilya3, of course, knows this, so they deny the facts, whereas you deny the consequence. In this sense, you ironically provide support for my argument.

Also, please dont revert changes citing "stable version", the lead's stable version was significantly different from the wording used.

This just isn't true. I reverted to the version that was in place both before Kautilya3's edits and my own. The article has claimed the RSS drew inspiration from Fascist/European far right movements for at least four years, quite possibly much longer; I stopped looking past January 2020. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So I finally sat down and read the Casolari piece at length, and I have to ask— did you read it? Or just an abstract or preview? As the article is not easily accessible without e.g. a JSTOR subscription or institutional access, you can be forgiven for not reading all of it, but you should have made that clear in your original message. Because it is impossible to understand how anyone who actually did read the paper could come away with a conclusion like Casolari is talking about a lot of stuff, but very little about RSS or that the expression is bound to show represents a conclusion rather than an introduction, after which she proceeds to do exactly that: show that the RSS drew inspiration from European Fascism.

Let me state, in no uncertain terms: the express, undisputable purpose of the paper, in her own words, is to show that Hindu nationalism, and in particular the RSS and its chief ideologues, borrowed from Fascism, repeatedly expressed their admiration for authoritarian leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler and the Fascist model of society, and that [t]his influence continues to the present day. In other words, she shows the very thing that you lead us to believe she left as a question for future research. If you did read the article, this is the height of dishonesty.

In response to your aggressively worded demand for quotes above, I will soon be placing quotes from the Casolari article into the citations of the Wikipedia article here shortly, but again, I must ask: did you actually read the paper? The assertion that Casolari talks about a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the RSS is particularly galling given the sheer number of times she references the RSS (no less than 58 times, by name; more via means of anaphora, etc.) Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I keep forgetting to ask about this:

The source cited "Atkins2004" is not an RS by Wikipedia norms. (Only signed articles in Encyclopedias are reliable sources.)

Could you cite the specific Wikipedia policy for this? I'm not seeing it; on the contrary WP:RSPRIMARY says Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited, and neither it nor WP:TERTIARY say anything about encyclopedic sources needing to be "signed". But perhaps this policy is elsewhere? Feel free to show us. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is Ian Talbot, a top historian of modern South Asia, describing the context of 1920s and 1930s, in which RSS was born:

Their emergence coincided with the rise of fascist movements in troubled inter-war Europe. But the sound and fury of the storm troopers [fascist movements] was only a faint whisper in the mohallas of India.[4] Its volunteer movements were rooted in the practice of landlords and rais employing goondas in factional disputes and in the tradition of proficiency in lathi-bearing practiced in open spaces and gymnasia by youths and professional wrestlers. Communities and political parties institutionalized the employment of volunteers, as communal conflict increased in India's towns and cities during the early 1920s. Thus the scheduled castes formed the Samata Sainak Dal, whilst the Arya Samaj established the Arya Vir Dal. Subhas Chandra Bose, the nearest equivalent to a budding Indian Mussolini, set up the Azad Hind Dal of the Forward Bloc following his spat with Gandhi in 1939.

This should lay to rest any claims of "inspiration" from the European Fascist movements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The text is quite literally comparing the RSS to Indian Fascists. While this excerpt does not establish a direction of causality here, that just means it neither provides evidence for or against the edit you want to effect. But it does provide evidence for retaining some comparison of the RSS with Fascism in the article, since clearly this is a comparison scholarly sources repeatedly make, in one way or another.

Is your point perhaps that the RSS did Fascism even better than the Europeans? This is what this source is effectively stating, for example. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's exactly how Wikipedia defines OR. I suggest you revise that page to better understand what original research is— and I also suggest checking out WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Your friend Kautilya3, of course, knows this, so they deny the facts, whereas you deny the consequence. In this sense, you ironically provide support for my argument.

Nope. Kautilya3 may disagree on what their argument was based on, but that is not OR. OR is analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Simply pointng out faults with sources and discounting them based on those faults is not OR, please read the policies you cite.

I would also caution against throaway accusations of WP:RGW, as well as dropping edit warring notices at talk pages after yourself repeatedly reverting to your preferred version. It is highly disruptive. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

OR is analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources

Yes, and that is exactly what Kautilya3 does. As an example, do you think the source that Kautilya3 calls "hardly scholarly" reaches the conclusion that it itself is unscholarly? Obviously not, but Kautilya3 seems to think WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a valid reason for rejecting a source's conclusions, without citing independent, reliable sources that make the same argument. As another example, he specifically disputed one source which claims Mazzini was a Fascist. Wikipedia doesn't care what you personally think about whether Mazzini was a Fascist or not! If you can find reliable sources making the same argument (not just regarding Mazzini, but specifically about Mazzini and how he inspired the RSS, as otherwise this would be WP:SYNTH), that is a different matter.

I would also caution against throaway accusations of WP:RGW, as well as dropping edit warring notices at talk pages after yourself repeatedly reverting to your preferred version

For the umpteenth time, my last revert was to a version prior to my own edits as well as Kautilya3's. Thus, you should heed your own warning. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This is either a WP:CIR issue or you are deliberately misreading policy.

As an example, do you think the source that Kautilya3 calls "hardly scholarly" reaches the conclusion that it itself is unscholarly

Are you seriously saying that we cant find a source's commentary insufficient or unreliable unless the source calls itself insufficient or unreliable? What sort of an argument is this?

As for your revert, not only is it to a version that is effectively the same as your preferred version (separate issues with that as well - The sentence was modified incorrectly in between as a "copyedit" from the older longstanding version), but your excuse would be invalid even if it was true. Please read WP:EDITWAR. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that we cant find a source's commentary insufficient or unreliable unless the source calls itself insufficient or unreliable?

You cannot find a source's commentary insufficient or unreliable, but you can cite other independent, reliable sources which make that argument. Kautilya3 has not done this, and therefore their rationale is purely OR.

As for your revert, not only is it to a version that is effectively the same as your preferred version

Again, this is just false! Why are you lying when anyone can see the page history? The lead has claimed that the RSS drew inspiration from Fascist movements for at least 4 years. Notably, this is not a version that refers to the organization as "far right," which would indeed be my "preferred version." Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and how could I forget. This quote doesn't even reference the RSS! Yet again, more WP:SYNTH from you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Brusquedandelion, you are writing a lot of stuff here, but you are not processing the points that I had made. So I went back and put in bold face, the key points. Please read them again and process them. A couple of points of explanation. "Bound to show" in Cassolari's text means that she hasn't shown it. She simply believes that it will show. That is not evidence. Regarding Mazzini, Mazzini was dead long before Fascism was born. So, it doesn't make sense to call him "fascist". Why the scholar called him a "fascist", I have no idea. It is also wildly beyond the topic of this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, this is your WP:OR. You have bolded your original research, but that does not make it any less your original research, I'm afraid.

"Bound to show" in Cassolari's text means that she hasn't shown it.

She makes this claim early in the article. She then proceeds to do exactly that: to show it. It is an introductory remark, and not a conclusion of the text. This is readily apparent even from the title of the article.

Regarding Mazzini, Mazzini was dead long before Fascism was born. So, it doesn't make sense to call him "fascist"

This is your WP:SYNTH, I'm afraid. The fact is the source refers to him as such. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

References

3O

I am afraid that I do not really see much (any?) reason in Brusquedandelion's rather-simplistic arguments. One shall ideally start by reading Ben Zachariah's A Voluntary Gleichschaltung? Indian Perspectives Towards a non-Eurocentric Understanding of Fascism to appreciate the complexities and why the line obfuscates more than it clarifies. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Although the connections of proponents of a militant Hindu nationalism (now simply referred to as the Sangh Parivar or Hindutvabadi) as a völkisch nationalism with Fascism and Nazism, not to mention with its leaders, are well worked out, [source: Casolari; contrasted with Jaffrelot who is said to "specifically avoid the fascism question"] it remains unclear how much the appeal of the Hindu ideologues M.S. Golwalkar, K.B. Hegdewar, or V.D. Savarkar actually depended upon the borrowings of their ideas from fascists, rather than the similarities that they recognised and perhaps reformulated in the language of fascism. The Sangh Parivar, and especially those who organised its paramilitary wings and wrote its ideological treatises, were familiar with European fascism, particularly its most successful Italian and German variants, and found them good, worthwhile, and useful models to emulate. This is not to suggest, however, that all of their ideas were merely imitations. It is not clear whether the fascist connection garnered any further support for the Hindutva brigade amongst their following, or whether the family resemblances of the ideologies brought them closer together.

Another example can be seen in a “Muslim” group: Inayatullah Khan al-Mashriqi, the founder and leader of the Khaksar movement, which was also called fascist in its own time, claimed to have met Hitler in 1926; later he even claimed that Hitler had learned from him!

TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Your own source affirms that the connections of proponents of a militant Hindu nationalism (now simply referred to as the Sangh Parivar or Hindutvabadi) as a völkisch nationalism with Fascism and Nazism, not to mention with its leaders, are well worked out. It only disputes the exact mechanism and degree of this connection. The disputed line, which Kautilya3 removed, only makes the very weak claim that the RSS "dr[e]w... its inspiration" from these movements, which is clearly supported even by your own source.

Also, are you seriously claiming that Kautilya3's arguments are not OR? Note that, unlike you, they do not actually reference any other sources. They merely cast aspersions on the existing sources. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

OR is only prohibited in article-space; source analyses on talk pages are necessarily OR. It's when that OR strays beyond the bounds of Wikipedia's definitions of NPOV and RS that it becomes a problem. In any case, this talk page is intended for discussion of article improvements, not about the quality of another editor's arguments. It is patently obvious there are lots of sources discussing the similarities, connections, and differences between Hindutva and European fascism. The focus here needs to be on how to summarize them accurately: what's currently in the article fails to do this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so, first, you agree their analysis is OR. That's a good starting point.

The problem here is that they have deleted a well-sourced claim, that has been, in one form or another, in the WP:STABLE version of the article for at least half a decade, based on their own original research. Notably, they have not substituted the claim with any other regarding the connections between RSS ideology and Fascism.

I agree that the present article fails to accurately summarize these connections. However, deleting this sentence and not adding anything in its place is a clearly substandard "solution". It is a non-solution, in fact, and results in a article that fails to meet WP:NPOV guidelines by omission. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying that being OR doesn't disqualify talk page source analysis in any way, and as such it's not relevant whether it's OR or not. I've restored the stable version, per below.

Let's focus on identifying some good sources and summarizing them, please. The ones I have in my notes are several Jaffrelot works; Bhatt & Mukta 2000; Bhatt 2001; Freykenburg 2008; Kurien 2017; and Leidig 2020. I will dig out full citations when I've a little more time, but hopefully the many voices here are already aware of these. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with this. I am presently working on summarizing the sources I have access to, and will share my work soon. I invite the other parties in this discussion to do the same. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree with K3 either but more importantly, I do not agree with you or the line. If after consulting Zachariah's article, you do not see the problems with our reductive formulation, what can I say? And, no, "drew its inspiration from" is not a weaker version of what Zachariah notes — quite the opposite rather! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Again- it isn't my formula. However I think removing what little mention there is in the article of a connection between European Fascism and the RSS results in an objectively worse article.

no, "drew its inspiration from" is not a weaker version of what Zachariah notes

Yeah, I don't understand this logic at all. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• I don't support Brusquedandelion's line as written; it's an obvious over-simplification. Yet what we have at the moment is pretty bad; there's numerous scholars analyzing both the similarities and the differences between Hindutva and European fascist movements of the 20th century, and the notion that Golwalkar and Savarkar drew inspiration from ethno-nationalist movements is most certainly not restricted to "euro-centric" scholars. The article as a whole is pretty bad, but the ideology and analysis sections could be greatly fleshed out with contemporary scholarly sources, and a summary of the links to fascism certainly belong in there. It is also worth remembering that in contemporary usage fascism is used by scholars to denote particular structural and ideological features of a movement, irrespective of chronology. The timeline therefore doesn't preclude the usage of the term with respect to the Hindutva movement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• +1. And, indeed, the whole debate on whether - and to what extent - the founding fathers of RSS/... depended on ideas of fascism emanating from Europe is quite misplaced and oblivious of recent scholarship that shuns such a derivative-model (as Ben Z writes) approach. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's all fine and well, but the change Kautilya3 is proposing does not actually make the article more nuanced and in line with this recent scholarship. On the contrary, it removes what little mention there actually is in the article of a connection between the RSS and Fascism. This is an objectively worse edit in that sense, even by your own argument. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't support Brusquedandelion's line as written

It isn't my line. It is the WP: STABLE line, some version of which has been in this article for half a decade or longer, which Kautilya3 has removed without reaching talk page consensus. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You are correct; it was the stable version, or the closest thing we have to it. As such I've restored the stable version, and hopefully that will drive more pro-active discussion here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Please, V, this is a grossly poor line — almost parody-worthy. What needs to be emphasized upon — in no uncertain terms — is the similarities between RSS' ideology and fascism; not this. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:STABLE doesn't mean the article is frozen. When a policy-based edit is made and no policy-based objection has been made, crying out STABLE doesn't help. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was not "policy-based", I have repeatedly argued. Reiterating the claim that it is does not make it any more so. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you suggest and why? M.Bitton (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the emphasis, but I'm seeing a lot of stone-walling about that similarity above and very little substantive engagement with the sources. That combined with the lack of consensus for outright removal prompted my revert. I'm not going to make another. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• What do you think of this?

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is the Indian counterpart of the western alt-right ideologies today and the flag-bearers of ultra-nationalism in this part of the world. Founded in 1925, primarily with an objective of consolidating Hindus against Muslims, RSS is driven by a divisive communal “Hindutva” ideology. They always had close links with fascist ideologists and organizations since the very beginning. One of the founders of RSS (B.S. Moonje) had visited Italy in 1931 to study the methods of the Italian fascist youth organization “Ballila” and had personally met up with the fascist dictator Mussolini. RSS founders had, in fact, drawn their inspiration and ideas from Italian and German fascists, and modeled their ideology of ethnic nationalism and built their organization emulating the Nazis. RSS’s slogan “one flag, one leader and one ideology” is a direct adaptation from Nazis and other European fascist outfits. RSS wants to transform India into a “Hindu Nation,” where Muslims and Christians are treated as second-class citizens. RSS ideologue Golwalkar (1939) was a staunch follower and admirer of Hitler and Nazism. He had never supported a secular India and was of the view that Hindus and other non-Hindu religions cannot coexist in India. He was, in fact, a strong proponent of using Nazi model to purge India of non-Hindu races. In his book We or Our Nationhood Defined, Golwalkar (1939, p. 87–88) wrote:

To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by purging the country of the Semitic race—the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures having differences going to the roots, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.

One of the reports filed in 1933 by the British Home Department had categorically identified RSS as an organization that aspired to be in the future India what the “Fascists” were to Italy and the “Nazis” to Germany.

The above was copied from this source. The one nation, one culture, one people slogan is also mentioned in this source. M.Bitton (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That you need to brush up on WP:RS? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What part of what has been quoted do you disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Moonje and the Golwalkar quote is discussed right at the top of this section. Please read it. As for the British administrators WP:CRYSTAL, see that policy page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to link to whatever you're asking me to read (assuming it's directly related to what has been quoted). Also, why are you citing WP:CRYSTAL? M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you are editor that reinstated the disputed content? Please note that I have put a Failed verification tag on it. Please provide quotations from the soruces that support the disputed content. I will give you 24 hours. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I restored the stable version that was restored by someone else for the simple reason that a) it's been there for years, b) nobody has questioned it before now and c) those who are questioning it did not say anything about failed verification.

There multiple sources that are attached to that sentence: which source did you tag? I will add the source that I quoted above if I have to.

I can add so much sourced content, but the only reason that's preventing me from doing so is the idea that we are having a discussion and trying to understand each other's positions. If that's not the case, let me know and I'll let the reliable sources do all the talk. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you do not like the conclusions of the text do not constitute a "failed verification", sorry. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton When you revert somebody's edit and reinstate disputed content, you should be able to defend it and show how it satisfies WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you are unable to do that, you should self-revert and stay out.

Brusquedandelion, whoever knew that you come here and jump around like a big boy expert editor, but I have to teach you first grade math the basics? WP:V says:

All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material.

[b] A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.

I have also now added a quotation requested tag. Please add quotations from any of those sources that "directly supports" the disputed content, and remove others that don't support it. You have 24 hours. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Brusquedandelion, whoever knew that you come here and jump around like a big boy, but I have to teach you first grade math?

Please refer to Wikipedia:No personal attacks and refrain from harassing me.

Please add quotations from any of those sources that "directly supports" the disputed content, and remove others that don't support it. You have 24 hours.

Sorry, but on Wikipedia there is no deadline. I'm happy to contribute to making this a better article, and I will do so with an appropriate amount of urgency, but I have zero interest in this sort of petty bullying and browbeating. Please do not ping me again if you intend to address me in this manner, or I will have no choice but to seek administrator intervention. Also,

When you revert somebody's edit and reinstate disputed content, you should be able to defend it and show how it satisfies WP:V and WP:NPOV

This is not how the WP:BRD cycle works, as regrettably, it is your edit to a WP:STABLE article that was disputed, and thus until such time as WP:CONSENSUS is reached, you should refrain from reintroducing your disputed edits. You should review that article to better understand Wikipedia policy on reverts. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Deadline can be given as per policy.

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

Since you have restored it (and that includes M.Bitton as well), you are under an obligation to provide a soure that directly supports the material. Or, you can remove the disputed content and take your own sweet time. Your choice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Already done, and besides, the drive-by tagging is clearly disruptive as all 4 cited sources support the statement (this has been confirmed by another editor today). Now, do me a bif favour and refrain from pinging me again. M.Bitton (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where you have done anything. All 4 cited sources are the original ones, and I have already flagged them as failing verification and requested quotations that show that they "directly support" the content. You have not provided any quotations. (You have mentioned a longer work by Casolari here on the talk page, but again without any quotations.) How can you possibly make a disputed revert and then say stop pinging me? That doesn't make any sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If you try harder, you may be able to see my other comments (including the one below this). M.Bitton (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

But the material is not lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the masource. The inline citation is plainly there for everyone to see, is from reliable sources, and does support the material, as multiple editors have confirmed at this point. Anyways, I have edited the body of the article to include cited quotes. I should note that quotations in Wikipedia article citations are not substitutes for actually reading the text, and are necessarily limited in what they can cover, since we can't (for example) copy paste the entire source into the citation, only a few relevant points. It is becoming increasingly clear at this point that you haven't actually done the elementary work of reading the sources you are critiquing, so I suggest starting there, and not use the fact that I have entertained your demand for inline quotations as a substitute for such reading. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I already have and left more reliable sources here that fully support what I restored. I personally don't think it's needed, but if it helps, I can easily add the above source and quote to the article and remove the drive-by fv tag. M.Bitton (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Here are a couple of reliable sources about the subject:

1. In the Shadow of the Swastika The Relationships Between Indian Radical Nationalism, Italian Fascism and Nazism, by Marzia Casolari.
2. RSS: Marketing Fascism as Hindutva (unlike the first, this one is easily accessible). M.Bitton (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This is an excellent start, thank you. However it presently has a decidedly unencyclopedic tone that needs some work. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I regret I have no time to dig into sources at the moment, but let me just note that:

• The concept of a nation-state developed in Europe during the 19th century, culminating in two world wars that, unlike previous wars, were not simple land grabs but were underpinned by ethonationalism.
• For most of the 19th century and much of the 20th century, that concept was relatively alien to India where the primary self-identification for a large part of population was, and still largely is, caste and/or ethnic group.
• Vande Mataram or Anandamath, being works of high culture, didn't reflect the realities and sensitivities of the masses at the time. Chattopadhyay only called for the rise of Indian nationalism, and not reflected its existence.
• While it can be argued that individual nationalist movements across the world did not necessarily need direct inspiration from Europe, several authors have noted direct contacts between Indian and European groups. It's thus hard not to notice the emergence of such common features as cult of violence, military-inspired civilian groups, structured intimidation (mass marches, weapon display), adoption of brown/khaki colour, focus on organised military training of children, special greeting rituals, and ideological polarisation (us vs everybody else). Most of that was alien to India until 20th century.

Whether the early RSS leaders simply tried to duplicate the Italian or German phenomena of the times, will likely never be known. What we know is that they saw European fascism. We also know that the very idea of militant nationalism, focused on a freshly conceptualised nation state, was only just taking off in Europe during fin de siècle, and, arguably, was alien to the Indian society at the time.

Interestingly, while large parts of Europe began to move away gradually from ethnonationalism after the experiences of WW2, leading to the modern-day European Union with much less in terms of borders and ethnic tensions, India has been following the path of nation building accompanied by aggressive nationalism and an ever-growing polarisation between us and everybody else, which incidentally led to several military conflicts with four of its neighbours.

Now, it's all OR by me, just a Wikipedia editor. Since i was approached directly, I'm posting it only as a justification for why I can't support Kautilya3, for whom I have high respect, in arguing that RSS was not inspired by the European fascist movements. To the best of my knowledge, aggressive ethnonationalism promoted as a state ideology and enforced through organised grassroot-level movements was not an indigenous Indian invention. Quite baffling in all this is Kautilya3's exclamation that "These are just a bunch of Eurocentric scholars who want to claim that only the Europeans knew how to bake bread", as it instantly reminds of the kettle and pot proverb. Except that bragging rights to fascism bring no honour. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

To add to this— I have at this point, on several occasions, asked @Kautilya3 if their point is that the RSS did Fascism even better than the Europeans. Talbot, for example, a source they offered up, while it does not even mention the RSS, certainly does seem to be gesturing at something like this, as does Kautilya3's own assertion re: baking bread. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I will give brief reply since I don't want us to digress. Not only the "nation-state", but the idea of "nation" itself is an import from Europe. There are no words for "nation" in Indian languages: rashtra (meaking kingdom, same as rajya) is an artificial translation. But nationalism can exist even if people don't have the language to articulate it. They might just express it in strange ways that we can't relate to. I believe Bharat-mata is one of those ways. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee was certainly a nationalist. Whether he was a "Hindu nationalist" or an "Indian nationalist" or whether he even saw any difference between the two is debatable.

The point of mentioning Vande Mataram and Vivekananda is to underscore the roots of these nationalisms in which Hindutva was born. This is amply analysed by Christophe Jaffrelot in his 600-page volume on Hindu nationalist movement. That is how the Indians baked their own "bread". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

But this is not what I asked you and indeed not what is being discussed. Vivekananda, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, etc. were not members of the RSS. If you think all nationalism is Fascism or vice versa, feel free to make that assertion, of course, but if not, that's fundamentally not what this discussion is about.

There are no words for "nation" in Indian languages: rashtra (meaking kingdom, same as rajya) is an artificial translation

This was also true in European languages— until it wasn't! The meanings of words change. The idea that in the 4,000+ year history of the Indian civilization, purely by happenstance nationalism just magically happened to arise precisely when it was ruled by a European power, concomitant with the rise of nationalisms all over the world, and that the first and chief ideologues of this nationalism were overwhelmingly upper class Indians brought up in the Anglo mould, educated at British-founded schools or universities, also by coincidence, is laughable. You should read Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson (and The Indian Ideology by his brother Perry Anderson, for a specifically Indian treatment) if you sincerely believe this. The former, for his part, firmly roots the first nationalisms in the Americas, and only subsequently Europe, and then elsewhere (are we to conclude from this analysis that Anderson is a Latin American-centric scholar, who thinks Bolívar taught the world how to bake bread? Obviously not).

None of this is to deny the agency of Indians in baking their own bread! Far from it. This is the problem with reductive Hindutva (pseudo-)historiographies, which assume that if anything has had "foreign" influence it automatically makes it worse, somehow; or that if we can't show that everything from calculus to toilet paper was invented in India (ideally before anyone else) this is somehow an assault on the Indian national character. Such characterizations reek of a deep seated inferiority complex— ironically itself the result of centuries of colonial rule, yet another way the European leaves their imprint on India.

But again— that's besides the point. We aren't just discussing the origins of nationalisms in India, we are specifically discussing the origins of Indian Fascist and far-right ideologies. I have probably already committed a grievous error by entertaining your strawman, but it needed to be said. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I can't read that book atm but I see a distinction between "we all live in a single country" (a rashtra called Mother India, etc.) and "we are one nation".

As I wrote, I'm unconvinced that nationalism – at least in its classic, European flavour – really took off in India before the later half of the 20th century, and also more as a result of state propaganda than an actual self-identification of the population. Earlier attempts at fascism, like one of the RSS, were closer to what we'd call sectarianism than nationalism (again, because of the primary identification of the population being with a religious/ethnic group rather than with the entirety of India's inhabitants).

By the way, I'm yet to meet a person who'd introduce themselves as "I'm Indian" instead of "I'm from India", lol. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Influence and inspiration

• Here from the OR noticeboard. I checked all four sources that are currently used to support the claim, and all four verified that European fascism was an influence on the movement. That should be the end of the discussion. One good point was raised though: this isn't sufficiently covered in the body. The correct response would be to add this information to the body. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  The argument isnt that nobody makes that claim, but that much better scholarship exists that contradicts the claims and the ones who support it are shabby or otherwise problematic.

  Its fine to say in the body "some scholars argue...... Others point to.... " etc, but stating as fact in the lead is plainly contrary to policy. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  What claim? Here's what William Dalrymple has to say about RSS:

  the RSS was founded in direct imitation of European fascist movements, and like its 1930s fascist models it still makes much of daily parading in khaki drill and the giving of militaristic salutes: the RSS salute differs from that of the Nazis only in the angle of the arm, which is held horizontally over the chest. The RSS sees this as an attempt to create a corps of dedicated paramilitary zealots who, so the theory goes, will form the basis of a revival of a golden age of national strength and racial purity... Madhav Golwalkar, the early RSS leader still known simply as “the Guru”, was the man who formulated the outlines of the RSS world-view and looked directly to the Nazi thinkers of 1930s Germany. He took particular inspiration from Hitler’s treatment of German religious minorities. “To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging of its Semitic Race, the Jews,” Golwalkar wrote admiringly in 1938. During Partition, the RSS was responsible for many of the worst atrocities against Muslims, and it was a former RSS swayamsevak, Nathuram Godse, who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi in 1948 for “pandering to the minorities”. In the aftermath of the assassination, Pandit Nehru decided to deal firmly with the Hindu nationalists and he denounced the RSS as a “private army which is definitely proceeding on the strictest Nazi lines”. Partly as a result of this, the Hindu nationalists were an insignificant political force during the first decades of independent India; but by the 1980s they had returned with a vengeance. Today the RSS has roughly 40 million members, organised under 40,000 district centres across the country.

  M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  The argument isnt that nobody makes that claim

  Your pal Kautilya3 disagrees (or used to; and until recently you heavily insinuated you did as well), as attested by his drive-by "verification needed" tag on four different sources that, as have been confirmed here by multiple parties and now even by you, it seems, actually do make this claim. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  ? I said the sources were shoddy and could be discounted based on better available commentary. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, actually, you didn't, because literally the only person who has actually even attempted to offer alternate commentary is TrangaBellam, and both you and Kautilya3 were simply, quite nakedly, misreading the given sources, rather than trying to offer up alternate ones, before TrangaBellam even showed up in the discussion. c.f. K3's blatant misreading of Casolari and your implicit support for it, vs. TrangaBellam who has at least tried to offer what they believe to be better commentary, without disputing that Casolari does provide evidence for the sentence, as written. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you Thebiguglyalien, I agree with both of your points. Unfortunately, it is not "influence" that is being debated here, but "inspiration", which is a considerably stronger claim. Many people claim (see, e.g., Dalrymple above) that RSS founded as a copy of the European fascist movements.The evidence for such a claim is non-existent, as far as I can see. But this goes against the orthodoxy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, it is not "influence" that is being debated here, but "inspiration"

  Are you a native English speaker? I mean this without linguistic prejudice, but we are editing an English language Wikipedia and this seems unfortunately to be a question of WP:Competence is required in the linguistic domain. See definition 1 at Merriam Webster:

  an inspiring agent or influence

  As well as 4 (c):

  the act of influencing or suggesting opinions

  All emphasis above is my own.

  That said, are saying you are amenable to changing the sentence to something like— "Influenced by..." instead of "Drawing its inspiration from..."? Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

My English is fine. The finer issues of the terms are:

• A inspired B means that A was a driving force behind B doing something. If not for A, perhaps B would not have done what they did.
• A influenced B means A got B to change their ways in some fashion. More often, "influence" may be subliminal, in borrowing thought processes.

More important for our purposes is the fact that influences can come from a variety of sources, and unless one has studied all the influences, one cannot be sure whether something was a driving influence or even the predominant influence. This is the problem Casolari (along with all other Eurocentric scholars) runs into. They start seeing European influence behind everything, just because it is something they know about. You have to study B on its own to understand what was driving it.

Physical training and drilling with uniforms was mimicking what the British were doing locally in India. It wasn't borrowing from remote Italy. The driver for doing it was the perception that Hindus were faring poorly in Hindu-Muslim riots, locally, even in Nagpur in 1923. It wasn't the remote Fascism arising in Italy just about that time. All these things are made clear in Jaffrelot, which these scholars occasionally cite, but mostly ignore. They are just going around with a hammer in hand looking for nails to hit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• This organisation had many inspirations. There is no need to single out just one entity on lead. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  WP:DUE requires us to cover topics in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources, and the reality is that no small amount of ink has been spilled on documenting the extent and nature of the inspiration European Fascist movements had on the RSS. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Casolari

I have now actually read the Casolari piece, which Kautilya3 incorrectly or perhaps dishonestly summarized as only making the claim that future research is "bound to show" the connection on question— in fact, this remark is merely introductory, and subsequent to this, Casolari explicitly provides archival evidence for this assertion, and indeed this is the whole point of the essay. I have to ask, TrangaBellam— did you read this piece? It is impossible to understand how someone could honestly read that piece and agree with Kautilya3's assessment of it, for reasons I have summarized above (Ctrl+F the string "As the article is not easily accessible without" and you will find my comment). This completely casts into doubt the rest of Kautilya3's assessment of the sources, whether or not they read this piece (as if they did read it, they are guilty of dishonesty; and if they did not, they are clearly unfamiliar with the pieces they are critiquing). Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not read Casolari's essay but I assume her ~100 page book — In the shadow of the swastika: the relationships between Indian radical nationalism, Italian fascism and nazism (Routledge; 2020) — is the best exposition of her thesis and I had read it, long ago. Chapter 2 is the relevant one:

So, Casolari starts by noting (p. 33-34):

It is hard to assert whether Fascism had a part to play in the birth of militant organisations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) [...] Initially, the RSS must have been very closely modelled on the akharas, the Bengali gymnasiums where martial arts and paramilitary training were performed – and the secret societies founded in Maharashtra by young militants close to Tilak, including the Savarkar brothers.

However, she cautions (p. 34-36) that the contemporary Marathi press (1920s) held Fascist politics in immense regard and given certain similarities between fascist militias and RSS since inception, it is not improbable that the founders were influenced by Fascism. In the next couple of sections, Casolari's excruciating focus is on Moonje's maneuvers in Italy during Jan-Feb 1931 including on his meeting with Mussolini — Moonje, in his diary, had noted (p. 42) about the relevance of the symbol of the ‘fascio’ to Indian context and of his plans to replicate it in India esp. by paramilitary training on a mass-scale. She ends the section by noting that:

the impact [of the trip] on the future development of Hindu militancy can hardly be underestimated.

In the next section, Casolari shows how across the 1930s, Moonje waxed about the need of militarily organising the Hindus along the lines of Mussolini and, in 1938 (p. 51; c.f. p. 47: 1934), would eventually open the Bhonsla Military School in association with RSS. However, as she notes in footnote 56:

Moonje had already shown some interest in the question of military education by the end of 1920s. He was in favour of the “Indianisation” of the army... In [1929] he founded the Rifle Association in Nagpur.

Fwiw, the idea of "militarily organising the Hindus" againsta an amorphous other (British/Muslims/...) has been a prominent component in multiple strands of Indian Nationalism since 1920s (if not before; see Franziska Roy's unpublished dissertation; Hedgewar was associated with Hindustani Seva Dal, etc.) — while I am sympathetic to the argument about how Moonje might have augmented it, she does not show any cognizance of the complexity of the issue! Nonwtheless, even she had to concede (p. 51):

[T]he values and practices that Moonje considered the roots of military education were more or less those of the akharas and the secret societies.

So, now, all that said and done, how does Casolari transpose Moonje's flirtations with fascism onto RSS except by a guilt-of-association? She takes recourse to an IB note from 1933 that had the RSS characterized as would-be Nazis and a meeting in 1934 where HMS leaders spoke approvingly of RSS for organizing a volunteer corps of Hindus.

To wrap up, as Zachariah (2020) notes:

[D]eeper intellectual, institutional and organisational, or social histories of engagements with fascism are not available. Many histories or analyses of Hindutva [eg: Jaffrelot] simply avoid the uncomfortable question of fascism; those that do not [eg: Casolari], rely mainly on the connections some of these Hindutva ideologues had with fascism in Europe.

I have nothing else to add except that as much as Casolari's scholarship is based on meticulous archival work, it is methodologically shabby, refusing to think of Fascism except as a Western import — having some not-very-clear minimums — for Indian consumers and, in the process, missing the forest for the trees. History, done Casolari's way, takes away focus from the multilocal longue durée histories of fascist repertoire of ideas. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

First, what's at dispute here is not whether you personally find Casolari's conclusions convincing. What is of primary dispute is whether Kautilya3's interpretation of them is accurate— and in particular, whether or not she herself is making the argument that the RSS is inspired by Fascism. And the fact is, as you have conceded at this point, she absolutely is! Thus, Casolari is a perfectly valid source for inserting a claim of this form into the article. This is what I asked you, and it is regrettable that you answered not by telling us what Casolari actually believes, but instead by deflecting and answering the (frankly, irrelevant) question of how her words make you, personally, feel.

Unfortunately, you are just some guy on Wikipedia, as am I, and your or my analysis of Casolari can never serve as the primary basis for her treatment in this Wikipedia text, although you are free to air your grievances on the talk page. Unless reputable sources argue what you are arguing, they simply cannot form the basis for editing the article! To my knowledge, reputable sources have not made the argument that Casolari is being "methodologically shabby" (a contention you don't give any real evidence for, by the way, besides vibes, a veritable morass of contradiction, and general WP:IDONTLIKEIT— but more on that later). Some have arrived at perhaps slightly different conclusions than her, and whatever text we decide on the article should reflect the multiplicity of such claims. However, the specific analysis you are making will not be amongst them because, actually, reputable sources don't concur in your assessment.

Now to get into the actual meat of your comment. There is a delectable irony running throughout your critique where, on the one hand, you use any sort of nuance in Casolari's position as evidence of weakness in her general thesis, while simultaneously accusing her of lacking nuance! What are we to conclude from this particular hypocrisy, other that that you have convinced yourself of the lack of merit of Casolari's thesis, and are now mission-bound to show it by any "evidence" necessary— even by flatly contradictory lines of evidence? Such a treatment is something anyone can post on a Wikipedia talk page, which is why it appears here and not in, for example, a review article in a peer-reviewed historical journal, because such drive-by analysis would never fly in the latter. Yes, Casolari permits that the RSS was not singularly inspired by European Fascism. But no one was arguing otherwise. You have only to compare your assessment of Casolari's text as lacking "cognizance of the complexity of the issue" with her own words, which roundly put to rest any such characterization of her work: If it is true that the Hindu society elaborated its own patterns of militarisation — I refer to the shakas as a typically Indian phenomenon — it is equally true that a most relevant result of fascist influence was the transmission of a more functional organisation and a stronger political character to the already existing organisations of political Hinduism.

To claim anyone was arguing otherwise is is fundamentally a strawman you and Kautilya3 have set up because you know the actual argument being made (that European Fascism, via a variety of means, played an integral role in shaping the rise of the RSS) is essentially unimpeachable. All reliable sources do is debate the specific mechanisms by which it happened. Casolari's contribution, in the main, to this body of work is showing, via archival evidence (none of which you actually mention in your comment), the specific ways that direct contact between Fascist leaders and Hindutva ideologues acted to shape the ideology of the latter, and on the ideological level, how fascis[m] influence[d]... the way in which Hindu nationalism developed its own concept of diversity, transforming 'diverse' people into enemies. This is why she focuses on the Moonje-Mussolini meeting, not because she believes in a "guilt-of-association" but because this meeting actually very concretely shaped the evolution of Moonje's ideology, and because direct contacts are the very focus of her work. And since you quote her assertion that the impact [of the trip] on the future development of Hindu militancy can hardly be underestimated without giving us any real reason to doubt it, I must conclude you have conceded on the veracity of this specific point, at least.

I must say, by the way, the flippant characterization of her work as simple "guilt-of-association" is particular galling when you consider (inter alia) the sheer amount of textual evidence she gives for RSS/Hindutva ideologues expressing admiration for specific aspects of Hitlerite and Italian Fascist ideology (some of which you even reference yourself!), for example, this passage from Golwarkar (from the article; not sure if it is in the book), written the year prior to his becoming general secretary of the RSS:

To keep up the purity of the nation and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the semitic races - the Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here... a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.

(She goes on to show that this feeling of admiration for the Jewish policy of Germany seems to have been shared by the entire circle of Hindu nationalism at the end of the 1930s..)

I'm sorry, but if one of the RSS' chief ideologues literally, nakedly saying "that Hitler guy really went off when he put humans in ovens, we should try something like that here" strikes you as mere "guilt-of-association", I must conclude you have made up your mind on this issue and that no sort of evidentiary standard will actually convince you.

Now, regarding this statement:

Fwiw, the idea of "militarily organising the Hindus" against an amorphous other (British/Muslims/...

The idea of ganging up on your (perceived) enemies is not novel in any culture, ever; arguably, even animals do it. That is not what at contention here. Your reductive strawman formulation (and in particular, the conflation of "external" enemies e.g. the British with "internal" ones e.g. for Hindutva, Muslims and to a lesser extent Congress; for Hitler, the Jews) conflates and flattens any and all such categorizations and conceptions of the enemy. Casolari, as an actual historian, is much more nuanced. Her treatment shows how the Hindutva/RSS conception of "internal enemies" was specifically influenced by the Fascist conception of the same— The theme of the 'internal enemy' is a further element of affinity between the ideology of fascism and of Hindu nationalism, expressed by a similar rhetoric (and in particular, how the development of such ideology was mediated by direct contact between Fascist and Hindutva ideologues— the very thing you frivolously dismiss as "guilt-of-association"). In favor of this thesis she cites, inter alia, the many lines of evidence showing the RSS had an at best ambivalent and vacillating attitude towards British rule (the "external" enemy); and correspondingly, the relatively unimportant role they played in the Indian independence movement. By this means she differentiates the RSS from other Indian organizations a very superficial analysis (such as your own) might analogize to the RSS, and in particular she shows how this difference was mediated by means of influence from Italian and German Fascism.

In conclusion— I strongly suspect your analysis would never pass muster at e.g. a peer-reviewed publication, and thus what I am about to suggest is an impossible task; but if you can find reliable sources making the same critique of Casolari as you are, we can certainly discuss working it into the article.

Until such time, the main takeaway here is: your implicit agreement that Kautilya3 misreads the sources (given that both of your readings of her fundamentally and starkly differ); and that Casolari does, in fact, argue at great length for the influence Fascism had on the development of the RSS, your personal feelings about the efficacy of such an argument notwithstanding, and thus she is a perfectly valid citation for the claim that the RSS was inspired and shaped by European Fascism. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

First things first, I am NOT making the claim (see above where I noted my disagreement with K3) that contemporary fascist currents in Europe did not influence the evolution of RSS; that would indeed be nonsensical. Instead, I claim that Casolari (1) fails to appreciate fascism as a global category that seamlessly borrowed from and blended into local pre-existing discourses that were not any less fascist when compared to the supposed European master-template and (2) hence, pursues a line of historiography that is polemical but not fruitful. This is NOT an OR-ish argument; c.f. Zachariah (2020) and Sleben (2021).

Thus, Casolari is a perfectly valid source for inserting a claim of this form into the article. - You need to show that DUE is met with; the genesis of RSS, Hindu Nationalism, etc. have attracted multiple acclaimed scholars. Fwiw, the book came out in 2011 from I libri di Emil and in the years since then, has been cited by about ten scholars.

You use any sort of nuance in Casolari's position as evidence of weakness in her general thesis. - I do not; I simply show how Casolari attributes a lot of developments to Western fascism but also tempers her arguments at the same time. Which your proposed formulation does not.

To my knowledge, reputable sources have not made the argument that Casolari is being "methodologically shabby". - That is one of the arguments of Zachariah (2020) if you read between subtexts.

You have only to compare your assessment of Casolari's text as lacking "cognizance of the complexity of the issue" with her own words. - I am depending on Casolari (2020); not Casolari (2002)

The concluding section of Casolari (2020) notes:

The tremendous impact that Fascism and Nazism had on Hindu nationalism and their long-lasting effects on present Indian politics oblige us, as scholars, to take a stance on the relationship between history and politics and promote an unbiased interpretation of the present through the lens of history.

Nothing in the two-page-long conclusion (or the chapter) of relevance points to any appreciation of the complexities involved. Except the couple of nuanced-lines that she leaves scattered amidst what is a very blunt thesis.

because you know the actual argument being made (that European Fascism, via a variety of means, played an integral role in shaping the rise of the RSS) is essentially unimpeachable. - If you are so sure about the integral aspects, I think sources will be in abundance. Please do bring them!

via archival evidence (none of which you actually mention in your comment) - I did note Casolari's scholarship to be based on "meticulous archival work"; this is not a gotcha-game and you need to read others' arguments carefully.

And since you quote her assertion ... without giving us any real reason to doubt it - So, have you consulted Franziska Roy's dissertation? What does it say; how do we combine her arguments with Casolari's?

but because this meeting actually very concretely shaped the evolution of Moonje's ideology - This is a determinist way of doing history; one can say that Moonje already had these fascist ideas and simply gravitated onto Mussolini because he was a great practitioner (see Zachariah (2020)). So, did Mussolini influence Moonje? Obviously! But, how do we judge the extent - "concretely"? Again, you seem to be laboring under a misapprehension that I reject fascist influences on the development of RSS carte blanche.

and in particular, the conflation of "external" enemies - Huh? I am referring to Franziska Roy's dissertation. Once again, have you read it? This is too bizarre to even reply to.

Her treatment shows how the Hindutva/RSS conception of "internal enemies" was specifically influenced by the Fascist conception of the same. - Can you please cite the specific pages in Casolari (2020)?

All in all, you have not even read — much less understood — Zachariah (2020). Else, can you summarize his critiques for me? But more to the point, do you understand that Casolari is not the end-of-everything in this area? She is contradicting Jaffrelot — a far-reputed scholar — in explicit; perhaps, you can let us know what does footnote 84 in Ch. 2 of Casolari (2020) speak to? How do you propose that we resolve all these in lead? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Such a treatment is something anyone can post on a Wikipedia talk page, which is why it appears here and not in, for example, a review article in a peer-reviewed historical journal, because such drive-by analysis would never fly in the latter. Yes, Casolari permits that the RSS was not singularly inspired by European Fascism. But no one was arguing otherwise. You have only to compare your assessment of Casolari's text as lacking "cognizance of the complexity of the issue" with her own words, which roundly put to rest any such characterization of her work [...] I strongly suspect your analysis would never pass muster at e.g. a peer-reviewed publication, and thus what I am about to suggest is an impossible task; but if you can find reliable sources making the same critique of Casolari as you are —

Casolari is somewhat quick to label things in terms of clear-cut political categories and rather downplays the fascinating hybridity of Moonje’s thinking.
— Footnote 35, p. 679 in Ali Raza & Franziska Roy (2015) Paramilitary Organisations in Interwar India, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 38:4

Fyi, @Brusquedandelion. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little pressed for time right now so it's gonna take me another day or two to respond to your other comments, but I'll respond to this one now.

You are once again arguing against a strawman: I am not saying that every other scholar has a view that is a carbon copy of Casolari's; nor that no one has ever disagreed with her about anything. To understand the difference between your critique of Casolari and that of the paper you yourself are citing, we only have to look at the sentence that this footnote hangs on:

Moonje had drawn inspiration from a wide variety of sources, including a visit to a Balilla school in Italy.

as well as the first part of the footnote in question, excised by your comment:

On Moonje’s sojourns in Fascist Italy, see Marzia Casolari, 'Hindutva’s Foreign Tie-Up in the 1930s: Archival Evidence', in Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 35, no. 4 (2000), pp. 21828...

In other words, the authors are citing Casolari in favor of the proposition that the Balilla schools of Fascist Italy influenced Moonje and the Hindu nationalist discourse more generally. Later sentences from the same source affirm this:

And there was Dr. B.S. Moonje, an important member of the (Responsivist) National party, ex-Congressman, Hindu Mahasabha leader and rabid communalist, who admired Mussolini, blood and soil ideologies, and the expansionist drive of Nazi Germany.

And, crucially, this paragraph from the conclusion:

What is certain is that these organisations were both inspired and driven by the political climate within India as well as by developments elsewhere on the globe, and particularly in Europe where fascist ideas, movements and governments had become well entrenched by the 1930s...This, in turn, raises the question of whether these movements, inspired as they were by the interwar fascist moment, can be included in a ‘global history of fascism’.

(emphasis my own; and as for the last question, the authors answer, resoundingly: yes— but more on that later)

So by your own source, yes, Hindu nationalism, Moonje, and by extension the RSS were all influenced and inspired by, inter alia, European Fascist movements. The repeated use of the latter verb is especially ironic given the sentence under debate. Were they influenced and inspired by other things too? Certainly! You are welcome to propose additions to the article that speak of other such influences as well, but more on that in a bit.

It is true that Raza & Roy differ from (e.g. Casolari) in the specific relative emphasis they place on local vis-a-vis "foreign" influence, and the extent to which different "local fascisms" differed; in particular they warn that ignoring such difference is to lose much of [Fascism's] malleability, discontinuity, and the manifold ways in which it appealed to actors across the globe. You are welcome to note this in any proposed edit to the article.

Where does this leave us in terms of the Wikipedia article? As I have repeatedly stated, I am perfectly ok with expanding and refining the article to elaborate on the varying scholarly positions on the specific ways in which European Fascism inspired RSS (or more generally, Hindu nationalist) ideology. But you'll notice that what both Casolari and Raza & Roy concur on is:

1. That European Fascist movements inspired the chief ideologues of the RSS and the Hindu nationalist discourse that gave rise to it— both very specifically use this very word.
2. The importance of situating the RSS and similar paramilitary movements, notwithstanding the many differences between them... in a 'global history of fascism' (from the latter). Simply removing one of the few sentences in the entire article that attempts to make such an analysis, without replacing it with anything, results in a strictly worse off article.

Thus, any proposed edit to the article, insofar as it cites these sources, must acknowledge both of these facts. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sigh, why don't you read what I write? To quote me (again), First things first, I am NOT making the claim (see above where I noted my disagreement with K3) that contemporary fascist currents in Europe did not influence the evolution of RSS; that would indeed be nonsensical.

Simply removing one of the few sentences in the entire article that attempts to make such an analysis, without replacing it with anything, results in a strictly worse off article. - No, ideally, the lead shall reflect the body. And, even if I ignore that, accuracy is vital. Also, I reiterate Kautilya3's distinction between "inspire" and "influence"; RSS was undoubtably influenced by a fascist repertoire of ideas — a global localism of the times, as Bakhle calls it — but certainly not inspired. Roy/Raza's usage of the word do not justify your's because they nuance the picture a hell lot to the point where such semantics do not matter.

Btw, I finally located a copy of Roy's dissertation (2013; UoWarwick) which takes an underhanded dig at Casolari (p. 136; footnote 69):

Casolari made much of the connections between Italian Fascism and the Mahasabaite Moonje to proof the enduring and committed nature of the fascist tendencies of the Sangh Parivar overall.

I can cite atleast another German scholar — and another upcoming publication, in a couple of years — which takes issues with Casolari's methodologies and overarching conclusions.

Now, for someone who wrote such a blunt line in the lead, your unsatisfactory emendation — having waxed eloquent about how my critique (then unsourced though I referred to certain scholars) made no sense and unfairly represented Casolari — is interesting. Perhaps, once you get off your high horse and start reading relevant literature — than accuse every dissenting editor of being aligned to Hindutva —, we can make more progress. Do recall that I had pointed to Roy's thesis, Zachariah (2020), et al in my very first critique of Casolari which you (obviously) did not bother to consult. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

that Hitler guy really went off when he put humans in ovens, we should try something like that here Small nit: The putting-humans-in-ovens thing had not started yet at the time (at the end of the 30s). A better paraphrase would be "that Hitler guy really went off when he forced humans to wear yellow stars, took away their rights, stole their property, beat them up, locked them up and slew them when he felt like it, we should try something like that here". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Bakhle

Even more important, the twenties and thirties saw the germination of a series of ethnonationalist movements in numerous places around the globe— what we might call global localisms. In 1892, Bengali literary critic and writer Chandranath Basu coined the term Hindutva, describing it as the best expression of the fundamental characteristics of “Hindu-ness.” A few years later, Rabindranath Tagore wrote an essay called “Hindutva.” Around the same time, B. G. Tilak, Savarkar’s hero and inspiration, also wrote an essay in Marathi on Hindutva—a term he used to refer to the Hindu community. Some twenty years later, when Savarkar took the same term and injected it with steroidal rage against a Muslim other, he was part of a larger movement. In dif­ferent parts of the world, charismatic men were defining the boundaries, both physical and cultural, of their lands. In the wake of the First World War, extreme right-wing pan-European revivalist movements and organizations challenged the basic premises of liberal democracies in favor of a fascist-tinged conservatism that usually started by defining who was and was not genuinely part of the nation.

Such concepts and movements were present in India too. There was a perceptible global zeitgeist and striking resemblances between Savarkar’s concept of Hindutva and the earlier German concept of Volkisch, the subsequent cult of Romanita in Italy, or even Ferenc Szalasi’s Hungarism. A little further afield, the academic Karelia Society advocated the purging of non-Finnish influences from Finnish life and culture, hoping to create a greater Finland whose boundaries went east as far as the Urals. All these groups romanticized a deep connection to native soil, privileged the country over the city, and advocated a palingenetic renewal of ethnic and, in some cases, racial purity alongside the removal of foreign influences.

From colonial India to Finland and beyond, in other words, the 1920s saw a global emergence of intense localisms. Scholars have debated how to define and describe these movements and ideologies. Were they fascist or semifascist movements? Were they proto-fascist or fascist-tinged, or did they partake discriminatingly of a “fascist repertoire” of ideas? Whatever the case, these movements and ideologies were bolstered by political and cultural organizations and cult-like secret societies. In Romania in 1927, Corneliu Codreanu founded the Legion of the Archangel Michael, which aimed to regenerate Romania and create a new spirit—a cultural and religious revolution that would bring forth the omul nou (new man). India had the Tarun Hindu Sabha, founded in 1923 by Savarkar’s older brother, and the RSS, founded in 1925. The Hitler Youth, Italian Youth, Hungarian Youth, Austrian Youth, Romanian Youth, and the RSS swayamsevaks (volunteer members) all imagined a new man who was young, militant, energetic, and forward-looking. This new man also aimed to forge a noncosmopolitan sense of identity and enact an identitarian and exclusionary politics.
— Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva, Janaki Bakhle, Princeton University Press, 2024, p. 12-14

Sadly, for Brusquedandelion, these debates carry no meaning. When all you have is a hammer, perhaps everything is bound to be a nail. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

My issue with them is that they are just blatantly trying to push their POV with complete disregard for intelectual honesty. Throwing all sorts of accusations, twisting others words, strawmanning, creating their own interpretation of policies, its just ridiculous. An editor who accuses others of WP:CIR issues then goes ahead and claims that we cannot find sources unreliable unless the source calls itself unreliable. What a joke. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

An editor who accuses others of WP:CIR issues then goes ahead and claims that we cannot find sources unreliable unless the source calls itself unreliable

You should cease and desist from making libelous accusations like this. I said that you can find sources unreliable if reliable sources concur in this (from the perspective of editing the article anyways). Unlike TrangaBellam, you have made no attempt to offer up alternate sources whatsoever, though of course you are all too happy to latch on to others who do the legwork for you.

The irony here is that I think you will find that you very much disagree with the sources TrangaBellam has offered, in that they almost invariably characterize the RSS ideology as Fascistic, Fascism-adjacent, or far-right (all characterizations you have explicitly disputed) and cite the influence of European Fascism on the RSS, even if they debate various details about the nature of this influence. Perhaps this is why TrangaBellam alone has actually tried to offer alternate sources, because you are aware that the body of scholarship is at odds with the Hindutva-apologetic POV you are pushing.

As I have pointed out to TrangaBellam, while the objections they have lodged with the previous formulation certainly have merit, the result of this discussion so far has been to permit POV-pushers like yourself to completely strip any mention of an influence of European Fascist movements on the development of the RSS from the article, which is not at all what you see amongst the reliable sources. This results in an objectively worse article.

complete disregard for intelectual honesty

I would like to take this time to reflect that this user repeatedly, with great chutzpah, lied about what the WP:STABLE version of the page was, and then when contradicted on this point by multiple other editors, instead of apologizing or admitting fault, changed their tune to argue instead that WP:STABLE doesn't actually matter here. Or will you now deny that that happened too? Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sadly for both of us, you continue to misconstrue my position. You are gesturing vaguely at the existence of debate, but when it comes to writing a Wikipedia article, the existence of debate does not allow you to summarily dismiss positions you don't like! The article body, as written, overwhelmingly relies on Jaffrelot as a source for what little discussion it has of this topic, especially after removal of the disputed lead sentence. What's particularly telling is the strikingly defensive way in which the article summarizes this discourse: it introduces criticisms of the idea (that the RSS is Fascist/Fascist-inspired) before ever actually introducing that position in the first place, or telling us who argues in favor of it and what their arguments are. For example, the Reception section has this as its cold open:

Jaffrelot observes that although the RSS with its paramilitary style of functioning and its emphasis on discipline has sometimes been seen by some as "an Indian version of fascism"

That is the full extent of the coverage this article gives to alternate views: the briefest summary, as worded by a detractor of this view, attributed to an unspecified WP:WEASEL-y "some," followed immediately by a rejection of it, all on the basis of the work of this single scholar (the following, brief paragraph cites Jyotirmaya Sharma in service of a similar idea, but again, no coverage whatsoever of the very position they are critiquing!). Notably, I refer not just to the views of Casolari, but also of numerous other scholars (e.g. Raza & Roy, who you cite above).

This is a sure sign of POV-pushing. The actual manner in which Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written when there is a scholarly debate on an issue is by fairly represent[ing] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. The article doesn't do this, and however flawed the now-deleted formulation, it was one of the few sentences in the article that did not pretty much entirely rely on Jaffrelot as a source (or worse, the RSS itself), and advanced a different view than him.

All in all, your claim that these debates have no value to me might have been true if the article fairly represented the debate, and I was trying to modify the article to remove one side of that debate. But in fact rather the opposite is happening: we have an article that places an WP:UNDUE amount of emphasis on the views of a single scholar, without really addressing alternate positions, and we have an edit that attempts to remove one of the few sentences that so much as gestures at the views of the opposite camp.

Now, I think Vanamonde is right that we are getting lost in forum style debates, so I would like to return us to the question of how to concretely improve this article. To that end: at this point several sources have been mentioned up and down this page, and there are others. I invite the involved parties to take this opportunity to briefly summarize the positions of whichever sources they wish to. We can then discuss how to incorporate these into the body of the article. I am working on this presently myself. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya3 said what

Since my name is being mentioned repeatedly by various editors, claiming this or that, I am making my position clear. The only thing I have done so far is to contest the problematic half-sentence in the lead, which is at the top of this section. I did, and I do, regard the sources cited there as Eurocentric, in the sense that they overstate the impact of European fascism on Hindu nationalism. Eurocentricism is a form of bias, and I expect such sources to be treated as per WP:BIASED. Christophe Jaffrelot doesn't have such bias, even though he is European, and the last source cited there is Eurocentric, even though he isn't a European. Jaffrelot is also an authoritative source on Hindu nationalism with thousands of citations on Google Scholar. So I expect all other sources to be validated against what he writes. Other scholars can of course disagree with him, but they can't ignore him. If they do so, they are substandard and will get reduced WP:WEIGHT.

I don't have a position on whether Hindu nationalis is a "fascism". I know that various positions exist, and there is unlikely to be a consensus on that issue. I also don't deny that European fascisms had influences on Hindu nationalism, though the precise nature and extent of such influences is debatable. I also don't accept circumstantial evidence of the kind that say X read about Y and, so, he/she was influenced by Y. The influences need to be demonstrated in what X actually did. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Other scholars can of course disagree with him, but they can't ignore him

If you actually read Casolari, you would note that she references Jaffrelot repeatedly— a main goal of the article cited by the now-deleted sentence was to refute a number of his claims. Unfortunately it was clear from the beginning you stopped reading Casolari a few paragraphs in, when you confused an introductory remark with a conclusion.

Now, I don't think you've read Jaffrelot either, but in the spirit of WP:AGF, let us suppose you have. Since you are so enamored of him, here's what he has to say about where the Indians learned to bake bread:

In fact, the RSS followed Savarkar in importing from the West the notion of ethnic nationalism... Emulation of a foreign model of nationhood proceeded under the guise of a reinterpretation of a quintessentially Hindu institution, the sect, which offered a familiar framework into which to introduce nationalistic values.

— Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics (1996), p. 50

I should sincerely hope you do not backpedal and accuse Jaffrelot of being Eurocentric, since you just at great length sung his praises.

You might be shocked at such a formulation, but only if your understanding of Jaffrelot is based on this Wikipedia article, which, I'm afraid, repeatedly and continuously misreads and misconstrues Jaffrelot. I will leave that subject for an upcoming, longer post, which I will pair with a proposed revision of the Reception section— stay tuned.

There is another problem with your comment, though: it expresses a fundamental misunderstanding of how WP:WEIGHT works. While it happens to be the case that (I'm pretty sure) nearly every source discussed here so far does reference Jaffrelot, it bears noting that WP:WEIGHT does not single out any single scholar or source as the benchmark against which all other sources are compared; indeed, there no Wikipedia policy justifying a formula like "if a source doesn't mention the magnificent work of Dr. Dude-Who-Agrees-With-Me (Dr. Dude for short), it isn't a reliable source"— regardless of how impeccable you personally find the scholarship of Dr. Dude, or how many innumerable citations they have. Rather, WP:WEIGHT demands that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Concretely, here, that means summarizing the views of Jaffrelot (because his is indeed a significant viewpoint), as well as those that disagree with him, in proportion to their prominence, even if some of those sources fully ignore Jaffrelot (though, again, I'm not sure how much this is actually a thing in practice).

Regrettably, that's not what the article does right now. Instead, what little analysis it has of this particular issue relies overwhelmingly on just Jaffrelot, and indeed on an inaccurate representation of what Jaffrelot actually states. But I'll write more on that later; for the moment, I just wanted to point out that there is no policy basis for establishing the sort of litmus test you have put forth here, whereby Jaffrelot must be the starting point of any source for us to even consider it; whereby all other sources are to be validated against this single scholar. In fact, not only is there no policy basis for this; it is directly contrary to the principles of WP:DUE.

One final point,

Eurocentricism is a form of bias, and I expect such sources to be treated as per WP:BIASED

If reliable sources claim (for example) Casolari (or another source) is being biased, as you claim, the article can also state that with attribution, but your belief that a source is biased, whether or not reliable sources even substantiate this belief, is expressly not a reason for discounting such sources. Per Wikipedia policy, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, Jaffrelot's latest exposition on the topic is The Hindu Nationalist Strategy of Stigmatisation and Emulation of ‘Threatening Others’: An Indian Style Fascism? (Routledge; 2016). TrangaBellam (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the academic institution I am affiliated with does not seem to have a copy of this book, nor do I seem to be able to locate a copy via, uh, less orthodox means; I could probably get a copy if I really wanted to, but not easily any time soon. I now see that this work is embedded within Politics of the 'other' in India and China : western concepts in non-western contexts (ed. Lion König and Bidisha Chaudhuri), which it appears my institution has a copy of; I've arranged to pick it up and likely will in the next day or so. However, I should ask: are you specifically bringing up this work to claim Jaffrelot has revised his views in the quoted passage above, or just suggesting the work to me? FWIW, the passage is from the very work cited in this Wikipedia article itself. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks TrangaBellam. That looks like an extract from the first chapter of his 1996 book, which everybody can read on archive.org:

• Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, ISBN 978-1850653011 – via archive.org

Here is a quote that I selected for its relevance to the present discussion: (Ethnic nationalism is not relevant)

On some occasions, such as the festival of Dasahara [which is the anniversary of the founding of the RSS], they marched in step through the streets holding their lathis to demonstrate the strength of the movement. These elements suggest that the RSS should be regarded as 'an Indian version of fascism'. As far as the formative years of the RSS are concerned,[168] this expression is especially relevant if it implies that, while the RSS belongs, with European fascism, to a general category of anti-liberal movements, it also represents a specifically Indian phenomenon which is not simply a reproduction of European fascism.[170] The RSS had already assumed its final form by the time of the first contacts between the Hindu nationalists and the European fascists, and neither Hedgewar nor Golwalkar developed a theory of the state and the race, a crucial element in fascism and Nazism. (pp. 50-51)

Even I marched through the streets along with all my schoolmates on the Independence Dary or the Republic Day, carrying Indian flags. Little did I know that I was being 'fascist'!-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That looks like an extract from the first chapter of his 1996 book,

Ummm... you know this is the same book that I quoted from earlier right? If it is true that it is simply an extract from the 1996 book, I'm not sure why TrangaBellam suggested it to me immediately after I referenced the book, as if there was some "update" that might of relevance there... perhaps TB can clarify?

Here is a quote that I selected for its relevance to the present discussion: (Ethnic nationalism is not relevant)

A manifestly absurd and self-contradictory remark from someone who kicked off this spate by declaring that Who knows, may the Indians taught the Europeans cultural nationalism?, but letting bygones be bygones for the moment— I trust, when the edit protection expires in 2ish days, you will not attempt to contest any edits I make to the article which argue for the Western origins of the RSS' nationalism, which cite that authoritative source on Hindu nationalism, the last bastion of non-Eurocentricity in l'académie, His Scholarly Eminence, Christophe Jaffrelot? For if it is true that this particular point is not relevant to this specific discussion (and putting aside the natural question this raises— why did you bring it up initially in the first place then, K3?), it clearly is relevant to the composition of the article as a whole. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

But I assume you did neither conceptualize an organic völkisch movement nor wish to produce a horde of "young, militant, energetic, and forward-looking" new men. Though, in fairness, some primordial strands of these elements were already circulating in India since late 1800s. In any case, you can see Tobias Delfs' Hindu-Nationalismus und europäischer Faschismus: Vergleich, Transfer und Beziehungsgeschicht (Verlag; 2008) which documents the influences of Fascist nodes of thought on RSS luminaries to some precision but, like Casolari, ignores the S. Asian context in totality.

I, fwiw, do not subscribe to Jaffrelot who approaches the question using, what is called in the field, a fascist-minimum approach. The answer lies somewhere in the middle and if left to me, I will wait for the publication of Ali Raza's new monograph which looks at "fascist paramilitary organizations in colonial India". TrangaBellam (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I, fwiw, do not subscribe to Jaffrelot who approaches the question using, what is called in the field, a fascist-minimum approach.

I agree with you there, but hopefully we do not need to wait on Raza's monograph to edit this article, which does overwhelmingly rely on Jaffrelot and by extension his fascist-minimum approach (to the extent it covers this topic at all). There are plenty of scholars that are at odds with him and do grade RSS ideology as a type of Fascism who we can cite, including Raza elsewhere. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Brusquedandelion, you need to stop using this talk page as a debating shop. What matters is that the italicised sentence in my quote from Jaffrelot squarely contradicts the disputed half-sentence in the lead. So what is your solution? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Replying to TrangaBellam: I was also a sergent of the NCC, which was, I suppose, Nehru's feeble attempt to counter the spread of RSS.

The reason for mentioning this is the frequency with which supposed scholars mention the parades as evidence of "far-right" or "fascist" nature of the RSS, without realizing how superficial a resemblance it is. For example, Critics still fear the influence of a more militant sister organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), whose assertive and military-style parades are reminiscent of far-right behaviour in other countries. Even Jaffrelot seems to have missed the fact that Dasahara (Dussehra) is the anniversary of the RSS, when some kind of public display of their organisation could be expected. Otherwise, parading is not a regular activity of the RSS, as far as I know. Did you notice the citation to Nehru for 'Indian version of fascism'? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Did such Nazi-like parades, salutes and slogans exist before the contact with the European fascist movements? M.Bitton (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please look for "Ian Talbot" on this talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I have, but that doesn't answer my question. M.Bitton (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

But those are answers given by WP:RS. When did they parades, salutes and slogans start in Europe? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the RSS started mimicking the European fascist movements right after they made contact with them. M.Bitton (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, parading is not a regular activity of the RSS, as far as I know. - No, you are quite wrong. I can give an answer but it will be very elongated and OR-ish; perhaps at your t/p.

Btw, I think there are a hundred and one ways to improve this article without being so intensely fixated on how to cover the nature of European-fascist (?) influences on evolution of RSS in the lead. Editors perhaps shall focus on them and wait out for Raza's upcoming monograph which is centered on the very question. That's the last comment from me in this section. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, parading is not a regular activity of the RSS, as far as I know. Strange, because Google thinks otherwise.[30] — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If Google is good enough, why do we write Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You keep responding to the weakest possible argument made by people who disagree with you, and always in a way that fails to substantively address their core argument. The disagreement here isn't analytical, it doesn't involve any sort of higher-order thinking, it is a base empirical question that even Google can debunk, in three seconds flat. Also, there are many reasons we write Wikipedia, but righting great wrongs isn't one of them, so if the whole world were fictiously inventing RSS marches out of nothing, we would simply have to report such marches as fact. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's regrettable (but perhaps not surprising, given that you consistently pick the weakest possible version of an argument to attack) that you've homed in the marches, and not, you know, the multiple instances of RSS ideologues expressing clear admiration for Hitlerite policies, and speaking of them in a straightforwardly aspirational way. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Far-right

There were recent lead changes to the article which replaced "right wing" with "far-right". Since such labelling can be contentious, and the previous lead being WP:STABLE for years, I have reverted these edits for want of consensus here.

There was a brief discussion (but nonconclusive) regarding the same on this Talk page recently (archive) but it was for the infobox not the lead and for the it being typified as "extreme right" (which redirects to far right).

I do see some sources for the far-right categorization in the article, but also note that general reference sources (e.g. [31], [32]) refrain from characterizing it at all. A discussion, if the lead is sought to be changed by editors, should be had. Gotitbro (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Something being contentious doesn't make it false. The organization is far-right, and more than enough RS's support this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That would still require consensus, the current lead achieved its current form after much back and forth edit warring. I would urge either you start an RfC and expand upon the political characterization within the body (which is very lacking). Issues upon the same (as linked above) have been raised in the past with no headway and as such its better to have WP:BROADCONSENSUS here rather than a limited discussion between some editors.

Also, that characterization of sources is not entirely accurate as noted above variance is observed within general reference sources. And what many a RS say is not entirely a criteria for labelling here on enwiki, see for e.g. Tucker Carlson: where though noted as "far-right" in a variety of sources (e.g. [33]) that labelling is not applied in the lead para with the lack of consensus there. Gotitbro (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to seek consensus: we go by what reliable sources say, and they say far-right. You, Gotitbro, are going against what the sources say by reverting far-right to right-wing. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no stake here, a consensus is always better when a need is seen to insert contentious wording.

It would also be better if sources are added for the same here (as of now only one source attests to political classification that is being added); and to expand that within the body of the article as well. Drive-by lead changes should always be avoided. Gotitbro (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely a need for consensus - WP:BOLD turns into WP:BRD once the edit is challenged. As for reliable sources, feel free to go through [34][35][36]. Exceptional claims need exceptional sourcing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim is not remotely exceptional. Reliable sources agree: the RSS is a far-right wing organization. None of the sources you link to refute this claim. Remember: all far-right organizations are right organizations, by definition. Thus, a source only referring to an organization as "right" is not evidence against the organization being far-right. The only relevant sources for this discussion are reliable sources that either make the explicit claim that the RSS is far-right, or which explicitly reject this characterization. Or the former, there many; of the latter, none. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a logical fallacy - saying that lack of denial against an exceptional (and largely, fringe) claim somehow makes that claim more legitimate. The majority of RS call it "right-wing". If you want to replace it with the more contentious label of "far right", then you have to have exceptionally strong sourcing and consensus among RS. This isnt somthing you can hand wave about. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Which logical fallacy, exactly? You will find there is no such logical fallacy here. On the contrary, you are commiting the fallacy of denying the correlative. Again, the only relevant sources are are those which either explicitly accept or reject the far-right label, or those which reject any label that is a strict superset of far-right. A source that says the RSS is not right wing is thus relevant, but a source that says it is right wing is not.
• There's nothing actually contentious about this amongst reliable sources, only amongst the general public (which necessarily includes members of the RSS and those aligned with its agenda). Not one reliable source actually casts any doubt on the legitimacy of the "far right" label. If such a source existed, we would not be having this discussion as you would have already offered it by now.
• The reality is, though, that even if you don't agree with the above, numerous reliable sources actually do claim the organization is far-right. It is not at all a "fringe position". In support of my argument, I offer the following additional sources that describe the RSS as far right, all of which are reliable and none of which can be described as "fringe", including academic books, peer-reviewed scientific journals, and numerous reputable news articles:

1. The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right refers to the RSS as "the most prominent far-right militia group in India" (p. 123); and asserts that the Indian far-right is "represented by the Bharatiya Janata Party' (BJP) and its militia-like affiliate, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)" (p. 103).
2. Leaving the Hindu Far Right, already cited in the article.
3. Conservatism and Ideology, already cited in the article.
4. Hindu Nationalism and Right-wing Ecology: RSS, Modi and Motherland Post-2014, published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Studies in Indian Politics.
5. The European Consortium for Political Research, consisting of over 350 academic research institutions in Europe, clearly states the RSS is "radically far-right, hierarchical, authoritarian, and founded on the premise of Hindu supremacy."
6. This article in Vice.
7. This article in The Nation.
8. Another article in The Nation.
9. This article in Al Jazeera.
10. Another article in Al Jazeera.
11. This article in HuffPost.
12. This article in Times of India.
13. This article in The Guardian.
14. This article in NBC News.

I could go on. The reality is there are literally dozens if not hundreds of reliable sources that make this claim. There are also numerous sources which term the RSS "right", it is true, even including some of the same sources that term it "far right"— because there is no contradiction! What you will not find is reliable sources which claim that the RSS isn't far-right. None whatsoever.

The real irony here, though, is that both sources presently in the lead for the claim is the RSS is right-wing (sources 2, 3 above) both explicitly refer to it as far or extreme right! Imagine that. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I do see some sources for the far-right categorization in the article

Glad we could agree on this! Not sure why anything else is relevant, except for reliable sources that explicitly claim the organization is not far-right (you will not find any). Brusquedandelion (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Brusquedandelion, please make your case here and obtain WP:CONSENSUS. Also, note that as per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarises the body. So you can't add stuff to the lead without a detailed discussion in the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I just did make my case. None of you are actually responding to my points, merely rehashing the abstract need for "consensus".
• The WP:STABLE version of the body already describes the organization as far-right, and indeed, the lead should summarize the body. This is another excellent argument for modifying the lead to say "far-right," thank you.

Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

how is rss far right when its political wing bjp is not far right? far right is literally fascism. just because some criminal minded people think bjp and rss are fascist dosent make it a reality. They are normal conservatives/Hindu nationals who apparently serve everyone regardless of religion. membership is also open to everyone. not like far right parties eg. nazi party where only white germanics were allowed.do read about Muslim Rashtriya Manch too. 2409:40E3:6E:A553:EC5F:751:48B3:37BC (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This is your WP:OR I'm afraid. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

"I just did make my case." And, that is a very poor case, exhibits no understanding of how Wikipedia is written. Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV from top to bottom. RSS was founded in 1925, with almost a hundred years of history. There are many scholarly books written on it, published academic publishers. What they say takes priority over what some random news commentators say. See WP:SOURCETYPES. Also claims made in passing carry little weight. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. if you are genuinely interested in contributing to this article, please go get a book on RSS published by an academic publisher and read it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I literally enumerated 14 different reliable sources attesting to the edit I want to make, 12 of which are new. I can add literally dozens more. Many of these come from non-news sources, including extremely reputable and authoritative sources on far right and Fascist movements in general. Conversely, none of you have not been able to localize a single reliable source that explicitly rejects this label— only sources which, at best, in passing, refer to it "only" as "right". I agree that the quality of sources matters, and the fact is, the sources that refer to the RSS as only "right" (without rejecting the far-right label) do so in passing. As you correctly point out, claims made in passing carry little weight. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, so thank you. Conversely, several of my sources are extended academic treatises specifically about far right movements, and thus clearly carry higher weight.

Also, again, the WP:STABLE body has called the RSS far right for years. As you yourself so correctly pointed out, the lead should summarize the body. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Lets take The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right (2002) that Brusquedandelion references above. This is a textbook reliable source. It states:

• Introduction (p. 1): These trends go beyond Europe: we could include the rise of Hindu nationalism in India, as reflected in the ascendancy of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), or the prominence of some of the more violent and conspiratorial ‘militia’ groups in the US. At an instinctive level, all of these are called ‘far right’, just as fascism is. The other groups/parties mentioned in this paragraph are: Italy's Alleanza Nazionale (described as "right-wing" on Wiki); France's Front National (right wing in intro, far-right in infobox); Austria's Freedom Party of Austria (right-wing to far-right); Germany's National Democratic Party of Germany (far-right); and Russia's Pamyat (far-right).
• In its chapter "Evolution of Ideology" (p. 103): Thus, if the Indian far right, as represented by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or its militia-like affiliate, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), want to use Hindu chauvinism as a political tool, the central state apparatus will not be an ally. Nonetheless, the antiquity of Hindu traditions, the multiplicity of gods and the richness of its epics provide an attractive basis for a powerful myth to accompany any far-right movement that chooses to exploit them to the full. Indeed, Hindu fundamentalist movements in the 1920s and 1930s did precisely that, and it is from this period of ideological ferment and communal tension that the RSS gained its original impetus. I.e. the RSS developed from far-right movements.
• In its chapter "Nation and race" (p. 123): the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the most prominent far-right militia group in India. Speaks for itself.
• In its Glossary under "Hindu Fundermentalism" (p. 293): In power, under the leadership of Atal Behal Vajpayee, the BJP has pursued moderate policies, it has not stoked militant Hinduism and has gone even further than Congress in co-operation with Western countries. Critics still fear the influence of a more militant sister organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), whose assertive and military-style parades are reminiscent of far-right behaviour in other countries. I.e. while the BJP party has moved from far-right to right wing, the RSS remains far right.
• Glossary entry for "RASHTRIYA SWAYAMSEVAK SANGH (NATIONAL VOLUNTEER FORCE) (RSS) (pp. 335-336): Secretive and militant Hindu nationalist organisation in India, dating from the 1920s. It idolises a specifically Hindu Indian nation or rashtra. It is associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), though the BJP itself is much more moderate. With a discourse that emphasises the significance of warrior gods and military drill for young members, it is reminiscent of far-right organisations in inter-war Europe. Since the BJP’s rise to a party of government in the 1990s, it has distanced itself from the RSS.

Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Gaia Octavia Agrippa, thanks joining the discussion. So what, according to these authors, makes the RSS a 'fascist' or 'far-right' organisation? What would you put in the article body to explain this grading? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The excerpts Gaia provided go quite a ways in answering your question already, speaking as they do of the RSS' "use [of] Hindu chauvinism as a political tool", "militant Hinduism/Hindu nationalism", "assertive and military-style parades" and so on. For the purposes of the lead, this is ample evidence for labeling the organization far-right. As far as the body goes, we need to work on a more extended treatment of this label, of course. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It has been a week and I haven't received any reply on these points, nor has there been any attempts to offer up alternative sources which claim the organization is not far-right, nor any attempt to engage with the sources provided. I will take this as a sign that you will not challenge the article labelling them as far-right, in accordance with the preponderance of high quality sources, but if this is not the case, feel free to continue the discussion. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, my question to Gaia Octavia Agrippa, which went unanswered, shows that the sources cited here are superficiaial, and as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, can't be given so much weight as to brand the organisation in the lead or the infobox. The majority of the sources call it right wing, and that is what we do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, my question to Gaia Octavia Agrippa, which went unanswered

I answered your question. This is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The question wasn't actually material, though; the question of why (high quality) sources grade the RSS a certain way is necessarily something you ask after agreeing that they do generally grade it a certain way.

the sources cited here are superficiaial, and as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

As I noted above, it is the sources which only refer it to as right which are superficial:

As you correctly point out, claims made in passing carry little weight. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, so thank you. Conversely, several of my sources are extended academic treatises specifically about far right movements, and thus clearly carry higher weight.

In the next statement you strangely switch from talking about quality to quantity:

The majority of the sources call it [only] right wing

This has not been established. It is a claim you have reiterated with no proof. (Note that I have interpolated "only" into your statement otherwise it would be trivially true.)

Even if it were true, this is flatly contradictory with the prior statement that stressed the quality of sources rather than their quantity. Of course, both matter (though quality matters more). But regrettably, you have not made any attempts to explain your gradings, neither in terms of quality nor quantity; you have simply asserted them without evidence.

To summarize: exactly two WP:TERTIARY sources have been provided here which refer to the organization "only" as right, while there are a litany of WP:SECONDARY sources that refer to it as far-right. Notably, not one reliable source has been provided that explicitly rejects the "far-right" label.

Would you say this is an accurate portrayal of the facts? Note that the summary above says nothing about what the Wikipedia article should say; I want to first make sure we are in agreement about how the sources cover this topic; or if not, what the exact nature of the disagreement is.

The next thing I'd like to establish is how to grade sources on this subject. Wikipedia policy is clear that secondary sources should form the bulk of reliable sources that article content relies on, and thus have higher weight than tertiary sources. Further, as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS notes, Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable. Thus, I propose the following grading for the quality of sources regarding how to characterize this ideology:

1. Reliable secondary sources specifically about the RSS or specifically about far right movements and ideologies
2. Other reliable secondary sources
3. Tertiary sources

Would you agree with such a grading, or if not, what are you criteria and how do you grade the sources which discuss this subject? Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam we would appreciate your input on this topic. How do you feel different portions of this article should refer to the ideology of the RSS (right-wing, far-right, or something else)? I see you noted a source below, but I don't see any other commentary from you here. It would be greatly appreciated. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources (TB)

• Shakuntala Banaji (2018) Vigilante Publics: Orientalism, Modernity and Hindutva Fascism in India, Javnost - The Public, 25:4, 333-350, DOI: 10.1080/13183222.2018.1463349

Please do not write in this subsection, thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)