Talk:Persecution of Hindus

The following addition to "Mughal" section was removed without due reasoning,

There are however reports of Akbar plundering temples and defacing hindu idols after his conquest of Chittoor.^[1] Subsequent Mughal Rulers like Shah Jahan are also reported to have demolished temples, broken down hindu idols and killed Brahmins during his rule.^[2]

You need to have consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Here is a proposed version of the lead with widely accepted information from High quality WP:RS sources. Please User:Kautilya3, could you take note, and revise the lead. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hindus have experienced both historical and ongoing religious persecution and systematic violence, in the form of forced conversions, documented massacres, genocides, demolition and desecration of temples, as well as the destruction of educational centers.

In the medieval period, some Muslim rulers viewed the expansion of Islamic rule in the Indian sub-continent as a religious conquest ("holy war") against the Hindus (infidels),^[1][2] and desecrated many Hindu temples.^[1][3] During the British rule, Hindu communities lived in a relative calm until the violent partition of India in 1947, which was accompanied by communal riots and large scale displacement.^[4]

In modern times, thousands of Hindu Bengalis, were killed along with other Bengalis in the 1971 Bangladesh genocide by Pakistani soldiers.^[5][6] In 1990, over 100,000 Kashmiri Hindus , had to flee from their homes in the Kashmir Valley for safety amid sporadic killings by militants^[7], and many Kashmiri Hindus ended up living in refugee camps in Jammu.^[8]

• If anyone has any concerns, please discuss them here RogerYg (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Jackson never says that medieval Muslim rulers were persecuting Hindus. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, Peter Jackson has mentioned (on the cited pages) that the Muslim historians of the medieval era viewed the creation and expansion of Islamic Sultanates in Hindustan as "holy war" and a religious conquest, characterizing Muslim forces as "the army of Islam" and the Hindus as infidels. Though, you may be right that Jackson's opinion was that these claims are exaggerated. RogerYg (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Jackson's reference alone may not be sufficient in the lead, and I can add several other more relevant references, such as Durant, who has called the Muslim conquest of India "probably the bloodiest story in history". RogerYg (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The Cleanup reorganize|date=January 2020 notice has been up since 2020. The article layout has since been imrpoved and I think this notice should be removed RogerYg (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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

In "Bangladesh" section, please do the following.

Action-1

Replace the existing "see also" navigation template with the following two templates

-- Added Freedom of religion in Bangladesh & Bangladesh Genocide as they are a direct relevant link, other links are sub-headings & aliases that may not be needed and even may be confusing RogerYg (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

{{Violence against Hindus in East Pakistan and Bangladesh}}

• DONE unless argued otherwise. Please provide more relevant reasons if you re-raise the request RogerYg

Action-2

Malaun (from arabic for "accursed") is a pejorative term for Bengali Hindus, most commonly used in Bangladesh by Bengali Muslims.^[1][2][3][4] Percentage of Muslims is continuously rising, while all non-muslim minorities have been continuously decreasing rapidly in Bangladesh due to various reasons including persecution, genocide, ethnic cleansing and rapes. Since 1951, Hindu population decreased by 15.1% in 71 years, and during the same period Muslim population increased by exactly by the same 15.1% (76% to 91.1%). Percentage of Hindus declined more than two third (over 67% drop) in 71 years, i.e. from 22% of total population of Bangladesh in 1951 to 13.5% in 1974 (8.5% decrease in 20 years),^[5] and then to drop again to 6.9% in 2022 (further 1.6% decrease).^[6] Hindus and others have been regularly and systematically persecuted, such as during the Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War and numerous recurring massacres of civilians^{[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]} where rapes is also used as weapon.^[14][15] Active perpetrators of genocide, ethnic cleansing and rapes of Hindus in Bangladesh include the Pakistani Military,^[11] Al Badr,^[16][17] Al Sham,^[18] East Pakistan Central Peace Committee,^[19] Razakars,^[20] Muslim League,^[21] Jamaat-e-Islami,^[21] and the Urdu-speaking Biharis.^[21]

Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

-- Included the part directly relevant to Hindu persecution ie. the declining numbers.

• Can be considered DONE unless argued otherwise. RogerYg (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The sub-title India is very vague. It follows the Medieval India, and British India; and refers to post-Independence India. Therefore, the appropriate subtitle is: Post-Independence India. If anyone has any issue with that you may discuss here. RogerYg (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

False history of Aurangzeb is seems to be added in Wikipedia,must be corrected by any impartial historian to maintain credibility of Wikipedia 223.233.83.104 (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There is little clarity and flow in this section, in my view.

As an example:

It says "While there is" which suggests the claim is more disputed than it might appear. Then it gives a historian who in fact agrees with the claim that it's the bloodiest in history. But then it ends with the a citation that disputes that particular claim.

The succeeding paragraphs are similar, with over-quotations of Romila Thapar's point of view, which have little to do with historical facts. As an example, the quotation of upper caste Hindus being lumped together with lower caste Hindus, and their perception of history and persecution as a result. This could be put into a different section if needed, but as an example, the historian Durant is not an "upper caste Hindu", and there are many other western Indologists quoted throughout the article which reduce Thapar's claim to more of a viewpoint epistemology than factual.

This is yet another quotation from the opening paragraphs:

The article, specifically, is about Hindu persecution. Why does it need to be mentioned in the introductory paragraphs that Muslim donations were also made to Hindu sects? It does not invalidate Hindu persecution at their hands. And why does the question of "what persecution means" need to be mentioned when there are many factual claims in the proceeding paragraphs?

I'm writing this to point out that there's been clear edit warring going on, based on politics. I'd like this section to be edited with consensus, and the points of view can be moved to a later section. Indosociology111 (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've also changed the claim that "Hindutva allies" dub it a Hindu holocaust, when the sources had only one journalist who said so. This isn't the place for proving your political point. Not all claims about Hindu persecution are coming from "Hindutva allies", and there's an equal amount of misinformation from the "other side", if I may. Indosociology111 (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This article attempts to say that the uyghurs who rioted and killed hindu merchants did so cause they "married" uyghur women. That is not true they charged insane amounts of interest on uyghurs who burrowed to survive. Then when they couldnt pay they broke into uyghurs families homes and took their women and children hostage in what was called "house-breaking". where they were raped and treated like rubbish. uyghurs freed the captive uyghur women and children. ~2026-11264-24 (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)