Talk:Vegetarianism in Hinduism

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Starting this topic to discuss this statement: Since past decade, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party government in centre has pushed vegetarianism on the masses.

• Is this WP:DUE on this page?
• If it is considered due, does the source support the wording of "pushed vegetarianism on the masses"?
• would attribution or academic sources be required for this claim?

Asteramellus (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sikhpride38, Orientls, and D4iNa4: your response please? Each of you has reinstated this content, inter alia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure why Asteramellus is repeating himself. He raised this objection days ago and it was already addressed above by another editor right here.

BJP pushing vegetarianism is well supported by the sources. Orientls (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It needs to be there. If you want evidence for that summary, then see these various incidents where BJP can be seen imposing vegetarianism. Sikhpride38 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica defines: vegetarianism, the theory or practice of living solely upon vegetables, fruits, grains, legumes, and nuts—with or without the addition of milk products and eggs—generally for ethical, ascetic, environmental, or nutritional reasons.

"Pushed vegetarianism on the masses" means that vast sections of the population had been forced to become vegetarian. There is no such claim in the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Removed "on the masses". Orientls (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sikhpride38 Thanks for the links. I may be missing something, but I don't see any of the 4 links says the word 'Hindu" or "Hindu Nationalist" or "BJP" etc - one link talks about Jain, another about some specific community etc etc. Not sure how these "evidences" support the sentence. I see several issues here:

1. Using a single newspaper source (and using that to generalize as fact) may not be enough to say this as fact and would help to include scholarly sources with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

2. I see that Orientls removed "on the masses". "pushed" is kept - is that word neutral? - what does pushed mean? Maybe it mean "promoted" or maybe they have created new policies? Reading Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation, I think these views needs to be attributed to specific academic sources using wikivoice. Also, are they only pushing this "Since past decade" because in the sentence below, it seems to imply that they believe in vegetarianism?

Also, the section heading itself is not neutral (see WP:STRUCTURE - there is already a section for "Modern Hindu vegetarianism" where such content can fit.

Also, just want to note (regarding question above about starting another topic) - To keep the discussion more focused (which was requested earlier by Kautilya3 also), I am starting separate topic for each specific issue. I have read other India related talk discussions and discussions on this page, which has helped inform my understanding on issues like this. But, for my further clarity, I am thinking of seeking input at WP:NPOVN - so keeping things separate will help others see what is being discussed more clearly. Hope this helps clarify. Asteramellus (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Just want to see if anyone has any further thoughts on this. Asteramellus (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I have further thoughts on everything but it's just very exhausting having to deal with... the things. The entire "Hindu nationalism" section is undue as a separate section and should be a subsection of the last section if it even needs exist. If a sentence needs to be cited to a journalist (regardless of how "excellent" he may be) writing on a news website, that's also a clear indication that it's not due. Also, the article should probably at "Hindu vegetarianism" for consistency with the other articles mentioned in the section above. I guess I should just move it, if you don't have any objections. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:01, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest to create another topic here if you want to suggest a move/rename the article to "Hindu vegetarianism" so editors can give their thoughts. Asteramellus (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Starting this topic to discuss this statement - Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), upholds pure vegetarianism and views vegetarianism as integral religious purity of the Hindus. Similarly, the BJP does not allow meat in their events.

• is "BJP does not allow meat in their events" WP:DUE on this page?
• would attribution or academic sources be required for this claim?
• Source says "The Hindu nationalist camp sees vegetarianism as integral to Hindu religious purity." - even if we consider this as fact and not opinion, does the current wording "integral religious purity of the Hindus" reflect what the source says? - seems source talks about vegetarianism tied to doctrinal concept and current wording seems to generalize this to people (Hindus).

Asteramellus (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you show any sources that contradict the concerning information? Yes it is all due for the section. Orientls (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It should say "integral to religous purity of the Hindus". I actually prefer the wording in the source, "Hindu religous purity" (where "Hindu" refers to the religion, not the Hindus).

Other than that, I don't see any problem with WP:DUE. In fact, it should be made stronger. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I need to provide sources one way or the other and I don't have any - I am not adding the content here - I am simply reading what is being cited here. To further clarify the concerns here:

1. It is not clear how whether the "BJP" allows or does not allow meat at events is relevant to this article "Vegetarianism in Hinduism"? If this is a specific practice, it belongs on their page unless there is broader analysis on this by scholars.

2. And, currently, this is stated as fact using a newspaper source and don't see how it meets WP:NPOV and without attribution. Wordings e.g. "upholds pure vegetarianism" and that "vegetarianism is tied to "religious purity of Hindus" are stated as facts and needs scholarly sources and attribution using wikivoice or maybe this is their ideology which is stated as fact somewhere? And "pure" in "pure vegetarianism" has many different meanings - it is adding confusion to a reader. Asteramellus (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I think what is clear is that both the BJP and the RSS, possibly along with other affiliate organisations, uphold a vegetarian ideal, and impose it within their own organisations in various contexts. They have also tried to create state policies in favour of vegetarianism in specific contexts, such as during Hindu festivals and in the vicinity of temples. The source (Snigdhendu Bhattacharya) is quite excellent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya3 and thanks for your input in other discussions here. Reading Snigdhendu Bhattacharya's article - when it says "RSS...practices pure vegetarianism", and that is is the parent organization of BJP and then BJP's two leaders it says are "vegetarians" and that "Meat is not served at BJP events." - if these are the facts, maybe it might help change "upholds" to "practices" and to add that extra context that their two leaders are "vegetarians". And any thoughts on the section heading and the usage of "Hindu nationalist" (I understand that, reading the main page for RSS, that they are labelled that way, but including label here I think is undue).

Also, for some context, I see that Bhattacharya's article has several links and clicking one of the links, it took me to another article titled "Enforced Vegetarianism in India - Meat shops and slaughter houses in Gurugram near New Delhi will stay shut for nine days during a Jain religious festival." - is that because of "Hindu nationalist" or is it maybe a "push" from the Jain community? And possibly fact may be that outside those "nine days", they might not be vegetarian?

And then, from the links that Sikhpride38 had given [6][8], maybe the push might be from the communities also (such as Jains or the Jain-Vaishnava mentioned in those 2 newspaper articles). It seems newspaper are treating such incidents for "vegetarianism push" as "Hindu nationalism" even though the incident might be e.g. Jain-related.

And maybe these communities are trying to "uphold" their beliefs (because reading this article, it says As a result of influence of Jainism and Buddhism, the nascent Hindu-traditions embraced the ideals of non-violence and vegetarianism. By about 200 CE food and feasting on animal slaughter were widely considered as a form of violence against life forms, and became a religious and social taboo - so since 200 CE there has been some form of "push" for vegetarianism from some Hindu traditions - I think the article is missing this context too. e.g Something like Buddhist_vegetarianism#Views_of_the_three_Buddhist_vehicles for views on vegetarianism by different traditions in Hinduism might help to see the context (regardless of actual adherence in practice).

In short, I think it is best to try to keep things NPOV with consideration for what is due/undue and attribution, given the complexity and how contentious this issue might be. Asteramellus (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Just want to see if anyone has any further thoughts on this. Asteramellus (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The Bhattacharya article has plenty of examples of BJP governments pushing vegetarianism. Whatever practices/beliefs have been adopted from Jainism/Buddhism, that was a long time ago. Now it makes no difference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again Kautilya3. What I meant above for Jainism was highlighting the linked-article Bhattacharya article uses where it is talking about the Jain community.

Also, I read Bhattacharya article again (based on what you mentioned about plenty of examples) and few linked-articles in that article - I see even more issues than what I have originally highlighted as UNDUE.

See some examples of what Bhattacharya article says and what some of the linked-articles used to support those conclusion actually state:

1. Bhattacharya's article says "Egg was taken off menus in mid-day meals served in primary schools in many BJP-run states." - the linked-article used for this conclusion says "..announced plans to serve eggs 46 days a year, while vegetarian students would get fruit .." - I don't see any reference to BJP, and in fact it says they have plans to serve eggs! - and then it says "Resistance comes not from the students but from some NGOs who don’t want to serve eggs for religious reasons."

2. Bhattacharya's article also says "Many BJP-run states moved to remove meat and fish from being sold or eaten in public spaces." - 2 linked-articles are used to state this.

One article seems giving some historical background e.g. "Municipal Corporation has ordered the removal of stalls selling non-vegetarian food", "the push against non-vegetarian food is not new..or anywhere in the world as a matter of fact...Mahatma Gandhi became the epitome of vegetarianism", "The killing of animals for meat..a pilgrimage site for Jains ..protest by about 200 Jain monks demanding the closure of all..shops in the city.", "There had been demands for the same, with those opposing non-vegetarian food arguing..", "Vaishnavism prescribes strict vegetarianism", "Vaishnavism is the dominant religious culture".

Second article is more specific about BJP and same municipal corporations concerns as previous article. From what I am reading, it is talking about some local municipal-level actions in specific areas like main roads or certain areas which some state person argues saying "..the respective municipal corporations and not his party, adding that the BJP does not object to non-vegetarian food per se but to food that is unhygienic or stalls that hinder traffic."

3. Bhattacharya's article says "There are towns where selling meat and fish has been banned on specific days of every week." - the linked-article used for this conclusion says "The Gurugram municipal authority has ordered meat shops..shut down for nine days.. for a Jain religious festival."

I see your point that "Bhattacharya article has plenty of examples" of "pushing vegetarianism" and that it is DUE, however, the way that push is being connected in this statement we are discussing Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), upholds pure vegetarianism and views vegetarianism as integral religious purity of the Hindus. Similarly, the BJP does not allow meat in their events. seems overgeneralization and possibly WP:SYNTH.

Given these concerns, I guess I will leave this one to you to suggest best way... To me, it seems we may need additional sources than just Bhattacharya to support the claim this statement is making as fact in wikivoice and/or wording that reflects the sources with attribution - including where the content fits and neutrality of the section title. Asteramellus (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Starting this topic to discuss these two statements currently in the article for more focused discussion:

• Modern meat eating among Hindus has been complicated by Hindu nationalists. It has created tensions among upper caste Hindus and lower caste Dalits, and also with Muslims and Christians.
• Hindu nationalists tend to present Hindu society as purely vegetarian while presenting Muslims as non-vegetarian in order to marginalize them.

It is supported by a two page summary by Allison van Tilborgh, where she summarizes: "Modern meat eating is complicated by the role of Hindu nationalism", which has created tensions among upper-caste Hindus and lower-caste Dalits, and with Christians and Muslims". Concerns are:

• WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - Currently, as written, there is no attribution, and same concerns as #1 and #2 topics (stating opinions as facts and e.g. using label "Hindu nationalists" when source is saying "role of Hindu nationalism"). Also, she summarizes that in four lines using (Cherian 2023, 121), which uses "a case of an eighteenth-century barber.." - Cherian is describing 18th century event and not using the term "Hindu nationalists", so it not clear it being shown as direct causation by the wording in a modern sense "Hindu nationalist .. has created tensions among" - maybe there are other scholarly sources discussing this showing this direct causation.
• Second sentence also has similar concerns e.g. "Hindu nationalists tend to present Hindu society".

Like the other two discussions above, would be helping to get thoughts on this also. Asteramellus (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the first source is not ideal because it is a short summary and the author doesn't seem very conversant with English. What she means is that the subject of meat-eating is complicated by Hindu nationalism, not the practice. So it shouldn't be stated in that way. Tensions were created between upper caste Hindus and lower caste Dalits, not "among" them. (The editor is not very conversant with English either.) But the "tensions" are really to do with beef-eating, not meat-eating in general.

Avoiding beef is not merely an issue of "vegetarianism" because even non-vegetarian Hindus avoid it. The cow is a revered animal and beef-eating is considered "sinful". This was so by the time Islam entered the subcontinent, as documented in Devala-smriti. It also seems to be an emotional issue for many Hindus, not just Hindu nationalists. I guess her eighteenth-century barber exemplifies this. The Hindu nationalists inherited these views. They didn't create them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The text on the article is based on the conclusion of the entire scenario provided by the author.

It requires no attribution. Read these two sources. They are talking about the same issue. You can easily find more. Orientls (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Both sources discuss the politicization of dietary practices, but the concerns noted above for WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV remain. As I have mentioned, current wording is stating an interpretive claim as fact, which per NPOV needs attribution.

You have added two new sources, so I am analyzing them too and giving thoughts, but would be helpful to see your thoughts specifically based on WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV why these three sentences requires no attribution, and current wording of facts is kept.

Also, none of the sources (the one cited currently, and two sources you gave here) fully support the wording as written. e.g. they do not support (maybe with interpretation) that Hindu nationalists frame Hindus as purely vegetarian and Muslims as non-vegetarian as their "intent" to "marginalize them".

As Kautilya3 mentioned, and also noted in Justin Nordstrom source (which references Thapar/Jha), the issue seems not just "vegetarianism". Current wording clearly does not support this nuance.

Also, to help keep this discussion more focused, it would be helpful to discuss with these 3 sources or give specific quotes showing how they supports these three sentences as written.

Also, do you (or others) have further thoughts on other two? Asteramellus (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

How does WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV apply when the statement is not based on mere opinion? You should express your proposed wording. Sikhpride38 (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:VNOTSUFF. We choose to include conclusions that are well-supported by evidence and thorough discussion. Comments made in passing may not even be considered reliable. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Wikilawyering is of no use. You need to discuss the content, both of the source and your contribution. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya3. @Sikhpride38. Regarding How does WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV apply when the statement is not based on mere opinion, please read all that has been explained here. Also, to prevent the edit-warring, where multiple editors were simply reverting and not discussing on this talk page, I have started these "reverse-WP:BURDEN" talk-topics, where I have read and analyzed the cited source and the two additional sources provided here, and the newspaper articles you have given as "evidence" in topic #2.

And as explained here per all the policies mentioned, these sources do not explicitly support the wording as written (again, all concerns are noted here previously). So, onus is on those who wants to keep this content (including the section heading) to clearly show how these sources directly support this, and then why this is DUE on this page in a section heading "Hindu nationalism", else the content should be removed (or rewritten based on concerns noted). Asteramellus (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Just want to see if anyone has any further thoughts on this. Asteramellus (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

@Orientls - please, can you explain here why you reverted with edit summary "it cannot be removed". The restored content has already been under talk discussion here, with unresolved sourcing/wording concerns raised since almost a month in three separate topics, and per WP:BURDEN / WP:ONUS, I don't see consensus to keep the currently worded content - e.g. WP:BURDEN "cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". I am also bit not clear about consistency here - The disputed content was restored with edit summary "it cannot be removed" and another edit that added more context and summarized content from the body in the lead was reverted with edit summary "Rv blatant POV pushing, use talk page to discuss your edits"? Would be helpful if you can explain why the first content "cannot be removed" and what specific concerns are "blantant POV pushing" in lead summary. Asteramellus (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is not going to help your case.

You have been told by several editors that the content is fully justified and is supported by the cited sources. So far, you are pnly expressing your own disagreement with the section. None of that permits you to remove entire section. You havent proposed your wording even after being asked so. Orientls (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Orientls I am not making any personal case here. I am raising concerns about sources, wording, and attribution based on policy, particularly for controversial content. Three discussions here shows that the content in "Hindu Nationalism" section, as written, is not fully supported by the cited sources. And per WP:BURDEN / WP:ONUS, the "cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". This is not a vote-count issue. Details are in the three talk discussions and the concerns are based on source verifiability and DUE/NPOV/attributions.

e.g is the title "Hindu Nationalism" DUE/NPOV; "pushed vegetarianism" seems broader than the source examples, many are with concern specific for meat/egg restrictions, local municipality actions, Jain festival related restrictions etc.; Claim that "Hindu nationalists tend to present Hindu society as purely vegetarian while presenting Muslims as non-vegetarian in order to marginalise them" is an interpretive claim and should be attributed if due/supported. So, please discuss these specific concerns in the relevant talk discussions. Asteramellus (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You are still expressing your personal disagreement instead of citing even a single reliable source that refute the statements in question. Orientls (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, the concern is whether the cited sources clearly support the content as written - not sure how a refuting source would resolve that concern - but a quick google news search shows e.g. reporting that discusses e.g. the municipality actions and rebuttals, and alternate political claims about the issue - hope that helps.

And this is not "personal disagreement" - as mentioned above, the concerns are based on source verifiability and DUE/NPOV/attributions. By addressing those specific concerns, the content can be included, excluded, or reworded based on what the sources support, if due, and with attribution where needed. Asteramellus (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You are saying (in a misleading manner) that "concern is whether the cited sources clearly support the content as written" after saying weeks ago that "It is supported by a two page summary by Allison van Tilborgh, where she summarizes..." I wonder what caused you to shifting goalposts. Sikhpride38 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sikhpride38 I am not changing the goal posts. This is a general discussion for all three other topics being discussed above - I agree that I generalized the concern in the first line above - however, no intention to mislead anyone here - all there topics above has concerns noted and infact three separate discussions were created in first place to get better clarity with focused discussions - and those 3 topics are the places where details are being discussed - so, yes, please discuss individual topic concerns there. Apologize if it came out as misleading - Also, I have already mentioned in the second paragraph that the concerns are based on source verifiability and DUE/NPOV/attributions. Asteramellus (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

You cite this which comes off as nothing more than unconvincing attempt to damage control. It did not stop a city in Gujarat to become the first city in the world that has banned non-vegetarian food. Orientls (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Orientls Please, I am "not citing" anything - Since you asked for by saying "...citing even a single reliable source that refute the statements in question" - I simply searched for any related news and that came up - I am not adding content here and I have no idea about politics in India and no clue what "...attempt to damage control" is - I am simply going by what the source is saying where the source is quoting people directly.

And, I have already said that the the concern is whether the cited sources clearly support the content as written - not sure how a refuting source would resolve that concern - So, please discuss at the three topics and as I have said above And this is not "personal disagreement" - as mentioned above, the concerns are based on source verifiability and DUE/NPOV/attributions. By addressing those specific concerns, the content can be included, excluded, or reworded based on what the sources support, if due, and with attribution where needed. Asteramellus (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)