Talk:Hindutva
|
This Fundamentalism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
| ||||
Suggest a merger with...[edit]
Hindu_nationalism. TeenageWasteland (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
How a Hindutvan views this article[edit]
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&oldid=1752118 FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- That’s just the article but with the refutations to the counter arguments against Hindutva... — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 12:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hindutva and linguistics[edit]
It should also be pointed out that while mainstream linguists see the Dravidian languages of southern India (such as Tamil, Malayalam and Kannada) as members of a distinct Dravidian phylum, Hindutva people suggest that they all descend from Sanskrit and that the existence of a separate Dravidian stock is a "Christian missionary idea". 84.248.168.99 (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seconded. They also claim that the Indian branch of Indo-European languages are native to India and that perhaps even all Indo-European languages are native to India, in the face of linguistic, textual, and archaeological evidence. They frequently claim that Sanskrit is the oldest extant Indo European language (laughably wrong). They completely elide the religious and linguistic links between the Vedas and early Iranian peoples (Mittani and the Avestas). There is also a whole school devoted to claiming that the Indus Valley Civilization spoke an Indo-European language (very unlikely) and that that language was Sanskrit (basically impossible). I think this is motivated by a desire to make Hindi the national language and devalue Dravidian languages. Hindi and related languages are full of Dravidian substrate words, and there are some intriguing hints that the Harappan language, if not a Dravidian language (which I think is a pretty good guess based on language distribution in the subcontinent today) at least shared concepts about the sky, counting, and time with Dravidian languages. (It's clear that there are cultural links between the Harappan civilization and India today, so the motivation to "claim" them is keen for both sides of this linguistic debate.) There's loads of this pseudo history driven by nationalism and regional chauvinism, and the cherry on top are pro-Tamil reactionaries who claim that Tamil is the mother tongue from which all languages on Earth are derived, for which utterly laughable "cognate" tables have been created as proofs. 70.171.38.98 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Very insightful[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2he3dzekQs&feature=youtu.be
https://www.reddit.com/r/librandu/wiki/fakehistoryporn
— 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 17:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
“Much, much worse” than white supremacy?[edit]
So I’m not extremely well versed in Indian politics, but I feel like I do know enough to question this. I mean, I’m just not sure there’s enough evidence for me to say that hindutva is inherently worse than white supremacy, and that they’re both exclusionary ideologies used to justify a range of horrific actions and policies (the Holocaust, the police, CAA-NCR, segregation, ethnic cleansing, communal/racial riots, etc.) I’d also argue it’s not extremely useful to argue about whether a particular type of ethnic ultranationalism is “better” or “worse” than the others. Idk. That said, none of this is intended to excuse hindutva or make it sound less bad, because it is clearly a terrible ideology that’s caused and will probably continue to cause a shitload of suffering. I’m just not sure if this statement is accurate, sensitive or wise, and thought I’d get the thoughts of someone whomst knows better than I do. 💙 ASELAಮಾತು 💙 12:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- (and this is probably obvious but just as an addendum I know far more about European style fascism/racism too so I’m sure that influences/biases my perception as well ofc) 💙 ASELAಮಾತು 💙 12:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Removal of red links[edit]
Red links are ugly. Unless they are going to be filled in soon, I suggest removing them from the article. Moony235Wolfy (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
