Talk:Kancha Ilaiah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bertrand Russell

Ilaiah and his likes should read Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian" and follow his rational outlook but not hatred-driven agendas.

The following account was deleted from "Discussion". I restore it.

Ilaiah's true colours

Every religion has serious limitations. Brahmanism/Hinduism no doubt has institutionalized caste and took in its fold everyone but never exterminated races/tribes/languages, in short, human diversity. Extermination of human diversity is exactly what Semitic religions did, for whom Ilaiah is a great advocate. Examples abound: Red Indians of North America, Aborigines of Australia, Mayan, Incan and other civilizations in South america. All this was done with Sword in one hand and a cross in the other. Europeans colonized Americas and shipped Africans like cattle to slave for them. Racism in USA is all pervading even today in spite of Lincoln and King. Ilaiah wants the same religion in India in the name of Dalit emanicipation.

Survival of thousand and one primitive tribes in India till today with their languages intact is an example of Hindu tolerance and all-encompassing accomodation. Semetic religions are destroying their identity, culture, traditions, livelihood and languages in India since the advent of British. They succeeded in North East, Bastar, Orissa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu etc. It is matter of few decades that all these tribes and their languages, which survived for millennia vanish.

What is needed is reform. Post-independent India has taken provides constitutional safeguards and affirmative actions, which everyone supports. Caste is slowly crumbling down. The change in Hindu mindset is all pervasive. Opposition in mind and soul does persist but it will evaporate with time. It certainly takes time. Inspite of all this, if someone wants to change his millennia old culture, customs, way of living, traditions, food habits, nomenclature, language etc., he is welcome to do so in free India. But one must refrain from heaping hatred and scorn over ancestral roots.

Hatred towards one's own mother simply because she looks ugly is what Ilaiah does. He must avoid that.

All the links seem to be anti-Hindu.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs) . Holy---+---Warrior 09:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes The person is against hindu philosophy and cast system.Holy---+---Warrior 09:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[removed as per WP:BLP] See diff by Hornplease 07:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu vs anti-Brahmin

While Ilaiah is definitely anti-Brahmin, he has said explicitly that he "hates Hinduism" and has made polemical attacks on the religion. Thus, he is an anti-Hindu. Hatred of an entire race/religion carries precedence over hatred of a specific subgroup of a society (Brahmins). Thus, anti-Hindu is an entirely proper definition.Hkelkar 10:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ilaiah has defined what he means by anti-brahminism,besides he uses the term Hinduism as synonym for Brahminism .His fight is against Brahminism not Hindus.Read well the citations.Holy|Warrior 10:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is original research on your part. If you can provide a quote saying that Ilaiah opposes only Brahminism, then put in a sentence where he explicitly refutes that he is an anti-Hindu and that he actlually only hates brahmins. If he equates Brahminism with Hinduism, then he has a false negative perception of Hinduism, which is the very definition of anti-Hindu, eergo he is an anti-Hindu.Hkelkar 10:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Plz refrain from using defamatory and lebelious words against a living person .This may lead to your blockage.Holy|Warrior 10:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No I think Hkelkar is right. You have not proven otherwise. Vandalism may lead to your blockage. You may also want to keep a hold on the veiled threats, because the admin noticeboard is no place for petty disputes as I hope you learned in the RfC Hate attack you filed against me (which was unsuccessful).Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No defamation. I have quoted him directly. This will be handled by a third party.Hkelkar 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view, per Hw's request for block review. Holywarrior does seem to have a point that the quotations were chosen selectively to give the article a partisan bias: if the man did say "I hate Hinduism", it is certainly fair to report that, however, you should allow for other quotes that put his position into some context. Also, his position should be discussed, as opposed to presenting a list of out-of-context quotes (wikiquote is for that). I agree that this is a matter of a content dispute, and not straightforward defamation per WP:BLP, so that reverts should not be considered 3RR-exempt. However, both parties are obliged to seek for a compromise acceptable to all good-faith editors, within WP policy. Editors that happen to be in a majority (and thus able to win revert wars) are charged in particular with making a good faith effort towards compromise. (ᛎ) qɐp 13:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a third party. Now we need a fourth party. Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

May I assume good faith that Baka has gone through WP:AGF.Holywarrior 06:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought we have a good compromise with the quotes. Article says that he claims that he is only anti-Brahmin, but his "I hate Hinduism" (+ others) are also there. If Holywarrior has any sources where he qualifies that he is not an anti-Hindu but an anti-Brahmin then by all means put it there provided it is verifiable. Bear in mind that accusations of anti-Hinduism have been made against him by other, so they should also go there. The article does not presently take a position on his views, merely states them and states the responses of other parties in regard of them, so it is neutral.Hkelkar 07:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And what is the problem in him being an Anti-Hindu. He just "hates an evil religion" and does have "justifications" for his views. You can read the references for details. Why are you saying that reporting a person as an anti-hindu is criticism.nids(♂) 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, are you being sarcastic? Otherwise the statement above is a real problem.Hkelkar 07:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But he has openly said that he hates hinduism and it is an evil religion. You can read his interviews. How are you criticising a person when you are just reporting his views.nids(♂) 07:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand your point and have added quotes to your last post to make it more in conformity with what I think you were trying to convey. If you think that this is incorrect then please feel free to revert my changes. However, if you were being serious, I continue to be troubled.Hkelkar 07:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Relax man. these are definately not my views. I have replied on your talk page too. These are his views and i dont understand what is the problem if he has such views. We shall just report them and let the reader decide for himself. These are not any third party views. You should not be offended if anyone has such views for hinduism.nids(♂) 07:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the claim that calling him anti-Hindu when he has explicitly said so himself is hardly POV or incivil or a violation of BLP. Point of fact, if you look at the article on Louis Farrakhan, he is, in many ways, similar to Ilaiah, and has made antisemitic comments, expressed that he hates Jewish people, and thus is listed in the anti-semitic category. It is hardly defamation or a violation of BLP.Hkelkar 07:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you finally get my point. In cases like M. Witzel, they secretly, but not openly, make remarks against Hinduism and being anti-hindu. In there case, it will be suited to add anti-hindu in there criticism section. In cases like these, he openly says that He hates hinduism, and is proud for such views. In his case this point comes as his direct view. --nids(♂) 08:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kancha has never said he hates hindus.His fight is against Orthodox Hinduism.Calling him anti-hindu is equivalent to saying only an Orthodox part of the society is Hindu.Holywarrior 08:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that that is original research on your part unless you can provide a sopurce where he explicitly states "I don't hate Hindus, I only hate Hindu Orthodoxy", or "I hate those Brahmins who practice untouchability" (agreeably a hateful thing), or whatever. If you find such a source, then good. Please put it up and everyone's happy. He has, however, explicitly stated that he "hates Hinduism". In the absence of any qualifications, that means ALL of Hinduism by default ie, all scripture, all Hindus such as Khatris, Vaisyas, Sudras and even those majority of DALITS who are still 100% Hindus and have resisted conversion. Unless he qualifies his statement, he even hates those SMARTIC Hindus who reject classical Hinduism and follow the non-caste-dogma based pre-Vedantic Hinduism. Unless he explicitly says otherwise, his comments must be taken at fact value and quoted accordingly. If he does say otherwise, then provide sources and they will be put into the article and nobody will raise any objections.Hkelkar 09:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Holywarrior, you should check the references. he is very clear about his views on hinduism. he says that hindu gods are demons and have weapons. Just check out once and then come back.nids(♂) 09:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I could find some material where he exactly says what he is aiming for

"In fact, I have proposed a scheme whereby the caste system can be eliminated. I said that Brahmin priests had gone to tribal societies and divided them into castes. Now, Hindutva proponents want India to become a unified Hindu nation. In that case, they should send Brahmin priestly teams to tribal areas, Dalitwadas and OBCwadas and these priests should live with the people, eat their food and integrate them into religion. I am not suggesting a division in society. In fact, I am proposing unity on an equal basis."HW 09:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Source?Hkelkar 09:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see [1] HW 10:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not clear. He does not refute claims that he is an ant-Hindu. Just says what his plans for caste resolution are. I believe that it is already cited. Plus, other sections of the article point to an anti-Hindu sentiment.Hkelkar 10:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Infact the claim that he is anti hindu itself rests on a citation which is not reliable.See below.Besides calling him Anti Hindu is Propagandist -- Not the scope of this article.HW 10:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We are not calling him anti-Hindu. Merely saying that other people have done so.Hkelkar 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Discuss here if you are not happy with my change.nids(♂) 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the discussion below .Also see WP:BLP and Wining the argument.Thanx HW 11:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For Holywarrior's benefit, quote from article regarding Iliah's criticism

ref:http://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-anand080603.htm

Archive of article on Himal Magazine

I am reminded of a meeting at Urdu Hall on Maqdoom Marg in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. It was 1997, a year after Kancha Ilaiah had written Why I am Not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy. The book raised a furious debate in academic, intellectual and political circles and went into a quick reprint. The Urdu Hall meeting was a discussion of the book by ‘progressive writers’. A sizable number of Muslims were in attendance. ‘Hindus’, in fact, were in a minority at the meeting. (Hyderabad has a tradition of secular-liberal and left-oriented Muslims – that is, it has more than its share of articulate Saeed Naqvis and a Muslim intelligentsia that is tired of Asghar Ali Engineer’s Quran-centric ‘secularism’.) Most speakers reviewing the book came down heavily on Ilaiah for “attacking everything in Hinduism”.Some senior Muslim speakers felt his attack on Hindu scriptures, especially the vedas and the Gita, was simply unacceptable and even scandalous. Here was a scholar who was looking for some solidarity not from a group of mullahs or brahmins, but ‘secular’ writers and thinkers. All he got was their ire, and refusal to engage with ‘anti-Hindu vitriol’.

I think the quoted sorce is not reliable per WP:Source,because neither the author nor the publication nor the website has established any credibility.A sort of personal Blog.HW 10:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You cannot establish that it is a blog of any kind. The fact is that the source, while not being neutral, is reliable. Countercurrents is cited numerous times on wikipedia.Hkelkar 10:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be benefitted from this [2].Thanx.HW 09:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim is hardly exceptional. it is quite normal.Hkelkar 10:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Many users will point out that Kancha Ilaiah's views are well known.Hkelkar 10:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't need user's views regarding Kancha, because wiki is not democracy.However you may quote any reputed daily / magazine/source given verdict that he is anti hindu.Making decision based on a person's observation is not good.Phps this person cannot be even quoted saying ACCOrding to .....HW 11:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, countercurrents, while not being neutral ,is certainly reliable. Plus, the article does not accuse him as anti-Hindu. the article mentions the term in an anecdotal context, saying that people have CLAIMED that he is an anti-Hindu.Hkelkar 11:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if we trust the author can we cite the names he has taken ??? It will become libellous .HW 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But no names are cited from the article.Hkelkar 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But we need name to be cited otherwise the Anti Hindu Tag itself is libellous.HW 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. Look at the David Duke article. The claim that he is an anti-semite (whoops, sorry. I meant "white supremacist" not anti-semite, sorry) is stated without specific names and is doing fine there.Hkelkar 11:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, he is not being tagged as anti-Hindu. Merely that people have said so. Since that is central to his whole rhetoric it must be mentioned without taking a position on it for the sake of NPOV, which the article does not.Hkelkar 11:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly its your POV otherwise I give you chance to prove it.HW 11:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not clear to me. No POV in the article. The article does not take a position on anything. It does not state anything as categorical truth so there is no POV.Hkelkar 11:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Plz don't try to win the argument.HW 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not about winning or losing.This is about veriafiable truth. None of us are taking any positions on this issue. It is simply a verifiable fact that people have accused him of being anti-Hindu. People who are his critics. That's all that must be written. I do not know how else to explain it to you and don't comprehend your intransigence. Nobody's defaming anyone here, merely reporting the facts unbiasedly. If the article said "He IS an anti-Hindu" that would be potential POV/defamation, since the article takes a position on the subject. The article simple says that people have called him anti-Hindu, that's all. That is a fact.Hkelkar 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't limited to describing people in the way that they describe themselves. It's an encyclopædia, not 'Hello' magazine. What matters is the things Ilaiah said and what others say about him. Our opinions and interpretations are irrelevant.Hkelkar 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You have so far failed to show your anti-Hindu claim on him.I had asked you to name the person who says so.Could you get even one citation??The citation you have given is not acceptable by wikipedia policy :However even that doesn't call him Anti-Hindu.HW 09:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not failed. ref is clear and articulate. The article clearly details and explicitly mentions the term "anti-Hindu vitriol".Hkelkar 09:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I know nothing about the topics being discussed here, but since I came across this "debate" I think I should chime in. The site itself, CounterSource, since it will publish articles written by anyone who choose to send them anything I don't believe should count as a valid source since it is is open to being simply the rantings and personal opinions of anyone who cares to make them. However, the site claims that the original source for said article is Himal Magazine which upon research is a perfectly respectable magazine with a good deal of valid journalism consideration to it which if the article is indeed from there then it seems fine. Ben W Bell talk 10:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for intervening in this matter as a neutral third party.I fully agree with your statement above. Since coutnercurrents is known to archive articles from legitimate sources, the ref is fine. Also, as an example, look at the countercurrents reference to this article (note 3):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Sena#_note-All_info_in_the_para.2C_except_for_the_references_in_between

where this article:

http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-ketkar011104.htm

From countercurrents is referenced, and it is assumed on good faith that it is a legitimate archive of an Indian Express article (Indian express is a newspaper in India). The justification here is the same as there.Hkelkar 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if your opinions regarding Himal Magazine are in good faith,I don't think it has cited someone or branded Kanca being Anti-Hindu.I had offered him to take few names who can be cited here , but he could not take a single name.HW 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The present article does not brand Ilaiah as an anti-Hindu either, merely that he has been called one (by Muslim scholars in Hyderabad with a secular liberal left-wing orientation, as stated in the article).Hkelkar 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Names are immaterial. The article clearly uses the term "anti-Hindu" for his views, ergo it needs mentioning. A possible solution can be the following sentence:

"(Ilaiah's critics) often refer to his rhetoric as anti-Hindu".Hkelkar 10:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The page is protected. People have been doing at least three reverts, perhaps four if I checked the tricky ones. Please discuss. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You must check it,plus there is no justification for protecting a version clearly violating WP:BLP.HW 10:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Plz rv to the non-libellous version.HW 09:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Version does not commit libel. Version simply states reported claims.Hkelkar 09:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, "Protection is not an endorsement of current version" as the tag says.Hkelkar 09:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A protected version doesn't endorse whether or not the page, as it stands, is currently correct, it simply stops any further editing on this article. A consensus needs to be made on this article going forward, any claims need to be backed up with references and any issues taken are discussed calmly and collectively. Ben W Bell talk 10:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Protecting a libellous version when rv war is going on is certainly not a wise step.This might be the case of gaming WP:BLP and protection policy ---- Devising dubious means to defame someone.HW 10:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Again with the accusations? Please don't waste the precious bandwidth of administrators and users repeating the same accusations without providing an adequate justification. There is ample justification for my edits in this talk page.Hkelkar

Both sides please stop it. Continuously sniping at each other will resolve nothing. This should be resolved as a discussion, no accusations, no personal attacks, just discussion backed up with references and evidence. I make myself available as a mediator in this matter if you wish to make use of me in that manner, but I personally have no opinion (or even care) about the actual matter any more than the disruption it causes to Wikipedia. Edit wars are not acceptable no matter the reason. We are all adults (I think) and should treat everyone as such, and as always assume good faith. The article is currently protected, so that is that. Now we work to resolve this so the article can be unprotected and normal editing can resume. Ben W Bell talk 10:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly won't like to have last word here.I am just waiting for Blnguyen.HW 10:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don;t want to convey the impression that I'm 'sniping' anyone. I would like the opportunity to engage in debate.Hkelkar 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected. I don't think that the mediation means that it must be locked. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it unprotected,i don't know either what you mean by above comments.Isn't it proper to discuss the matter directly rather than watching it from hiding .The person involved here (Ben) pretends since he has not protected it so he can't change the content either.Either directly involve yourself or unprotect the page immediately.I don't think Ben is the suitable person for mediation either.HW 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I should have checked to see that it stuck. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 22:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

Right from the viewpoint of trying to put an end to this edit war lets see what we can calmly discuss regarding this. I'll take the issues one point at a time. One of the lines of contention is this.

He is a major ideological figure in the movement that calls itself Anti-Brahmanism and claims to be a movement for the empowerment of the Dalits , but is often labelled as anti-Hindu by his critics, both Hindu and Muslim .

Right. Is there a source for this movement calling itself Anti-Brahamism? I think this should be sourced since it is one of the main points of contention. Ben W Bell talk 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Plz check my version ; Maybe you will get impressed.I don't think there is any need of putting such type of labels on anyone. So I had deleted both these labels.HW 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen your version and I'll come to it, don't worry about that. However if someone labels themselves as something then I think it is relevant. Ben W Bell talk 11:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

PS----> Labels themselves as something.HW 11:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, he does not mention he is anti-anything, not unlike Duke. However, notable third parties have mentioned anti-Brahman and anti-Hindu (I have provided citation for anti-Hindu allegation). A citation from a scholarly article alleging he is anti-Brahman is below.

I don't think that Holywarrior contends that he is anti-Brahman (neither do I, as his quote make that obvious). The contention is whether he is anti-Hindu or not. To address your issue, here is a quote from a text at

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/hock.html

Now, these anti-Hindu forces are exploiting the AIT to the hilt, infusing crank racism in vast doses into India's body politic. Read e.g. Kancha Ilaiah's book Why I Am Not a Hindu (Calcutta 1996), sponsored by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, with its anti-Brahmin cartoons: move the hairlocks of the Brahmin villains from the back of the head to just in front of their ears, and you get exact replicas of the anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi paper Der Stürmer.

Hkelkar 11:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Um if he doesn't label himself as anti-Brahamism, and the movement that he is a major ideological figure in doesn't call itself anti-Brahamism then you cannot state what was stated in that line unfortunately. The line has been worded that that is how they explicitly label themselves and if this is not the case then it can't be said like that. Ben W Bell talk 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do not believe that I edited that he said he ws anti-Brahmin. He is sly enough to say only that he "Hates Hinsuism and Brahminism and Brahmins". However, the sentence should be changed to say that he has been accused of anti-Brahmin and anti-Hindu, which he has per my sources that I have provided. HW removed all references to that.Hkelkar 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly ben has got my point,and this is my contention with him.HW 12:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That was never the point of contention. HW disputes that he has been accused of being anti-Hindu, and I have provided source that says that he has.Hkelkar 12:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand what is the problem in reporting his views. this is a link for his quotes [3]. He has such views and he is proud for them. Just like Ku Klux Klan was proud for their views. We dont need to apply labels on him. Just report his quotes or his views. That will be enough.nids(♂) 12:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. My edit did not take a position on his anti-Hindu views, merely stated that he has been accused of it.HW's confusing the issue.Hkelkar 13:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately even quotes are out of context --- dubiously written to proove one's point .It Too has to be written according to ref.HW 12:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As a wise man once said, "proove (sic) it", or it's Original Research again. You need to cite references where he explicitly says that he has been quoted out of context and that he is NOT anti-Hindu. By all means, claims made by him or on his behalf by notable persons in the movement or scholars should be mentioned IN ADDITION to the accusations made against him.Hkelkar 12:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately just being called anti-Hindu once isn't really encyclopaedic enough to put in that he's been called anti-Hindu. Saying Hitler was called a Tyrant is fine as it's been used by many people, but if I come out and accuse him of having been a fluffy bunny it isn't encyclopaedic. One quote on him being called anti-Hindu unfortunately isn't really enough to put that in as, lets face it, everyone can be called anything by anyone. If many people are calling him anti-Hindu then that's another matter but no such evidence has unfortunately been put forward to my mind. By all means mention his views with references to support them, but the views of others on him don't really matter too much unless there is a lot of people calling out with those views. Ben W Bell talk 12:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't one quote. The ref details a conference when many people said "anti-Hindu vitriol". We can add specifics to the article, of course.Hkelkar 12:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear from ben here sounds funny to me.HW 12:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It does appear to me (and do bear in mind I know next to nothing about Hinduism, Brahmans and the religious ins and outs involved) that the quoted passage from the story (which if it is a correct translation I do feel personally is from a reasonable source) that at this meeting even his own peers were indeed accusing him of being anti-Hindu. If this is the case then perhaps it is reasonable to include such a mention (though possibly not so high up the article), this is of course presuming the wording of "anti-Hindu vitriol" isn't an embellishment by the author. I don't think we can say that his movement is anti-Brahamism though. Ben W Bell talk 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Hindu American Foundation also alleges that hehas anti-Hindu sentiments. See:

"HAF Appreciates Congressional Hearing on Dalit Rights; Concerned by Biases"

On http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/newsletter/10-14-2005/newsletter.htm

Hkelkar 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think now Ben would get much clear idea.First he forwaded us a gossip column and now a rightwing mouthpiece not even directly calling him anti--Hindu!!!!! HW 13:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, "proove(sic) it". "Right Wing Mouthpeice" is an accusation (not supported by non-partisan sources). Besides, the fact remains that he has been accused of having anti-Hindu views. If anyone chooses to make assumptions about the position of those critics, then that does not demerit the accusation in on itself. May of those who have accused David Duke of white supremacy, for instance, have also been accused of being "Zionist agents" or whatever. That does not demerit the accusation, which is why it is mentioned PROMINENTLY in his wikipedia article IN THE BEGINNING ITSELF. The same standards should apply here, or else we have double standards.

Anyways, I believe you have violated WP:AGF again.Hkelkar 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead report it.HW 13:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I think there are views in the Hindu community that Kancha Ilaiah is anti-Hindu. There does seem to be resources to support these claims (what the sources are matter that much, very little is neutral in this world of ours) and it has happened on more than one occassion. To my mind anti-Hindu is fair enough to be mentioned using those sources, but the anti-Brahmanism needs to go. Can both sides agree on this point? It is reasonable is someone has been accused of something by many people for it to be mentioned as it simply gives more information and allows a reader to make their own mind up. Ben W Bell talk 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that anti-Hindu should stay and anti-Brahmin can be removed.Hkelkar 13:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No,simply because source does not say say.If we go like this then someone will write Anti-Sikh on top of Rajiv Gandhi article. WP:BLP is just to prevent these things.HW

Article does not say so? Sure it does. Read it (the countercurrents one).Hkelkar 13:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't have the time to do any work last night. Reaing comments that the two parties involved in this dispute have made on other pages I'd just like to point out two things. 1) I'm not actually a member of the Wikipedia mediation team, I'm just offering my services as a neutral third party, 2) I am actually an admin so I do have the power to unprotect the article when necessary. Right. I've read through the WP:BLP yesterday afternoon and Jimbo Wales is quite clear on defamination of living persons. Now we need to decide if this item is actually defamatory or not. Has this person ever described themselves as anti-Hindu? Have we any other sources of others accusing him of being anti-Hindu (I think the sources seem to support this but in light of JWales directives we'd need more sources to keep this in there)? Ben W Bell talk 08:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me the precise passage in WP:BLP that this sentence violates? Plus, what about my comparison with the sentence on the David Duke article? Isn't the claim that "his (Duke's) critics also refer to him as a white supremacist" also a BLP violation on the same lines?Hkelkar 08:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that who will take the accountability of calling him anti hindu???? wikpedia??? HW 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Infact nobody has called him anti--Hindu,the label founded by few users on this wikipedia only.HW 08:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the article does not call him an anti-Hindu.

I quote the justification from the relevant post in the talk page by User:Gazpacho (this is regarding David Duke) in Talk:David Duke:

I gave a reference for "white supremacist," which was the chapter from his book in which he talks at length about the superiority of the white race over the black race. He's also on record saying that blacks revert to their "genotype" whenever they are not exposed to white culture. It is not libel to call someone a white supremacist when he quite openly is one. It is not inherently demeaning to call someone a white supremacist either.

In the same vein, I can easily show from Ilaiah's books that he has made polemical attacks against Hindus (all Hindus, not just Brahmins, though he has singled them out on occasion). While I agree that that is not sufficient reason to say that he is an anti-Hindu on wikipedia, if a substantial number of people call him anti-Hindu (as the reference shows), is it not justifiable to say that those who criticize him have called him an anti-Hindu", or, at least "Some of his critics refer to his statements as anti-Hindu vitriol (word for word from the article)"?Hkelkar 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is not inherently demeaning to call someone an "anti-Hindu" anymore than it is to call someone a "white supremacist".Hkelkar 08:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Plz don't quote the same source which itself is ambiguous and gossip like in citing source.HW 08:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Holywarrior, why are you against putting his quotes in the article. They just represent his views. You are required to move all the quotes to wikiquotes only when the article gets too big in size, say 30K. Let us put those quotes back in the article and you can put the information about context of them. And why are you thinking that being anti-Hindu is demeaning. Even BR Ambedkar was Anti-Hindu and he was proud for that. You can refer to any of his published books for details.nids(♂) 08:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not in a mood to debate on B R Ambedkar here,who had converted to Buddhism .The person here is himself a Hidu,fighting for Social Justice.Why are you so eager to put those quotes here.They too may require massive clean up.HW 08:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Another source is here (I aready showed it to you earlier, but here are some more details from the ref.):

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/hock.html

Now, these anti-Hindu forces are exploiting the AIT to the hilt, infusing crank racism in vast doses into India's body politic. Read e.g. Kancha Ilaiah's book Why I Am Not a Hindu (Calcutta 1996), sponsored by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, with its anti-Brahmin cartoons: move the hairlocks of the Brahmin villains from the back of the head to just in front of their ears, and you get exact replicas of the anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi paper Der Stürmer.

Elst states Ialiah's book as an example of "anti-Hindu forces". he also mentions anti-Brahman in the sentence.Hkelkar 08:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Now while the next reference probably does not merit inclusion into wikipedia, it shows that a sifficient number of people are willing to take accountability of calling him anti-Hindu: http://www.india-forum.com/articles/66/1/Hindus-fight-discrimination-in-California-textbooks---3 Quote from TFA:

Note: Most people are unaware that all fronts calling themselves ‘Dalit’ are actually created and maintained by fundamentalist Christian missionaries. For example, Dalit Freedom Network [DFN] is an umbrella of most rabidly Hindu-hating ‘Dalit’ activists like Udit Raj and Kancha Ilaiah. If you call their toll-free number 1-866-921-1333, a Caucasian American will answer the call from Colorado. Ask for their contact information in India, and she will direct you to the All India Christian Council [AICC]!

Hkelkar 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm it is pretty clear now,the controversy here has been deliberately cooked up to justify the stand on Cal.Text issue.Very Bad I must say.Ben you can see now what the motive is behind branding him as such.HW 08:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. The Elst article and the magazine article were written long before the calif textbook controversy. besides, your claim is WP:OR and Ben must see that surely.Hkelkar 08:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think it is accurate and compromising to change the sentence to read:

"Some of his critics refer to his statements as anti-Hindu vitriol". Here, we are not labelling him an anti-Hindu. Merely some of his statements. Statements are not people and so BLP does not apply.Hkelkar 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If we go in this way then we will find "some ppl call him b****d (an abusive slang) .We need to name this --some,otherwise we can't go like this.HW 09:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not some people here. reputable and noted scholars in Hyderabad (as the article says). If there were random people then I admit the claim would not merit inclusion into wikipedia. The Hyderabad scholars are not random people though. Hyderabadi Muslim scholars have a long traditional of intellectual advancements.Hkelkar 09:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

regarding your "Ialiah is a Hindu" justification. I believe that Noam Chomsky is jewish, yet the article on him on wikipedia mentions allegations of anti-Semitism. Assuming that he is a Hindu (which he is not if he "Hates Hinduism") does not excuse him from his statements, or that of his peers made about him (his scholarly peers in Hyderabad).Hkelkar 09:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No comments on hkelkar ; this person is clearly trying to have the last word here.Much of his talks are irrelevant.HW 09:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is a violation of WP:Civil.Hkelkar 09:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable and fair to say that some of his critics accuse him of being anti-Hindu. I'm not convinced this does violate WP:BLP now reading again as it isn't making defamatory accusations directly at him but including views and opinions of his critics. Valid criticism is okay and isn't a direct attack. It's a bit like the difference between saying "George Bush is anti-Muslim" and "George Bush's critics have accused him of being anti-Muslim", two completely different things. In my mind I think the anti-Hindu thing can stay but needs the wording altered to make it clear that he hasn't labelled himself as this (to my knowledge) but many of his critics have. Reasonable? Ben W Bell talk 09:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Very reasonable and fair. I believe that I have suggested changing the wording of the sentence to read "some of his critics refer to his rhetoric as anti-Hindu". That seems to be in accordance to your suggestion.Hkelkar 10:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The big question is who are these critics --- have they written anywhere about it????? Can you recognise exactly who are these.If not How is it clear that they really acccuse him??? HW 10:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have provided 3 refs to that effect from a journalist, a scholar, and an organization saying that, at least his statements are anti-Hindu.Hkelkar 10:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't really need individual names of these critics, that sort of thing would rarely happen, but if we can agree that some critics as mentioned in the references are calling some of his statements anti-Hindu then it would be a great leapforward and we can move onto other aspects of this article that are causing contention. Ben W Bell talk 10:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All your refs are personal blogs,actually you have forgotten to paste the email id of that fellow--- HAF .He says he can too be approached there.Go ahead ; infact none of the sources are reliable ; all hearsays saying someone says so.And what makes you think they are scholars?????? HW 10:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The basis for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, it's verifiability. There is an article posted from a reputable source, Himal Magazine, that includes this information. There is also evidence from the other references of criticism against him for being anti-Hindu. We have evidence that he has critics and that his statements have been labelled as anti-Hindu. That is enough. It wouldn't really even matter if the sources were only blogs (which they're not entirely), they are prominent ones that obviously have the backing of many people. Newspaper editorial columns and the likes have been accepted as valid sources for views and opinions in Wikipedia on many occassions and as representing the views and thoughts of large numbers of people. Ben W Bell talk 10:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say ,but Himal magazine is not well known(I heard it 1st time).If you think it is OK, I say you dare quote like Himal magazine says so.Secondly,we have no evidence that he has critics saying.Personal blogs are not accceptable as refs.HW 10:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It has a circulation readership of 5 million, it's a very well known title in Nepal by all my research. Also a simple Google search will show that he is used and accused of being anti-Hindu by both organisations and individuals all over the web. There is more than enough evidence out there, in my mind, to support saying he has critics that call him anti-Hindu. Ben W Bell talk 10:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ben you may like to see a parallel case here thanksHW 10:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that to be terribly relevant to this discussion. What we are interested in here is does he have critics who label him, or at least his statements, as anti-Hindu and we can see this has happened so it's fair to report it. Can I ask Holywarrior what your personal investment in this article and this anti-Hindu statement is? Are you a supporter of Kancha Ilaiah's teachings and viewpoints? I think it's reasonable to ask. Ben W Bell talk 11:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Laughable,May I ask you are you sitting next to user:Hkelkar ,user:Subhash bose or user:Bakasuprman or connected to them in some way.I thought it reasonable coz you have not even cared to rv to non controversial version before putting up a trial against this person.As per WP:BLP negative elements need to be established first ,but you have chosen other way.HW 11:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusing an admin of complicity? Hmmmmmm. Anyhow even the earlier version was controversial because I (and at least one other editor) controvert it.Hkelkar 11:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um no I have absolutely connection or knowledge of those people you mentioned. I've not even heard of the other two. As for not reverting to the previous version no I haven't done it because the page was protected by a fellow admin and it is against Wikipedia policy to change the protected version like that. Protection is no endorsement of a version, it is just to stop the editing. I'm putting no one on trial, just asking a question. You seem set against any text put on the article that says some critics have labelled him as anti-Hindu, something which I believe the the references along with my own simple Google searches, support. I'm just trying to establish why you are against it being mentioned other than throwing WP:BLP out each time. I'm accusing no one of nothing, and it is immaterial to me whether it is mentioned or not, other than the evidence seems to show me that he does have such critics. Ben W Bell talk 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask about HW's opinions and motives, I found these interesting bits in the talk page of another article I've been perusingHkelkar 11:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Claiming google search shows--- What exactly???can you share,how can google search show he is anti hindu or not.Plz ShareHW 11:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No a Google search hasn't shown he is anti-Hindu. A Google search has shown he has critics who claim he is anti-Hindu. Not the same thing. A simple search on +"Kancha Ilaiah" +"anti-Hindu" shows this. Ben W Bell talk 11:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They are either blogs or wiki mirror sites.phps blogs too are inspired by wikipedia version.Plz don't do anymore harm.Its my request.HW 11:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I discounted the Wiki mirrors. There are many blogs yes, also many editorials, articles and reviews of his books. There is enough there to support a claim that "some critics have accused his statements of being anti-Hindu" which is the wording I'm proposing. Ben W Bell talk 11:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

why not be bold in your assertion and say --- wikipedia has decided to call him anti hindu????? Because these so called critics are also inspired by wikipedia.They are not journalists of any standing but bloggers of obscure credibility.HW 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea where you are coming from on this, I'm willing to bet most of those critics have never heard of or read the English language version of Wikipedia. I'm not calling him anti-Hindu, Wikipedia is not calling him anti-Hindu under this proposal, there is nothing defamatory in stating the wording I have proposed, and nothing that would violate WP:BLP. Why are you so set against this wording? Ben W Bell talk 11:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you will loose the bet here.I have done enf. experiment regarding how notions changes [Check the version of Lalu Prasad Yadav check the related blogs too.I have proofs that wikipedia is used by bloggers and journalists too.I have seen it;infact sometimes ppl interact with me on my messenger.HW 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is rather strange How desperate ppl(specially admins) are here to brand Kancha as anti hindu.First,I was blocked unethically,to protect this version and then someone really protected it without seeing the merits of alternate version.HW 12:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt it seem strange that some user wants to keep his famous quotes out of his own article.nids(♂) 12:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um I'm not branding him anti-Hindu, I'd never heard of the guy before yesterday, I don't care to know more about the person, I have no interest in someone being pro-Hindu or anti-Hindu or anything else. Also my proposal doesn't brand him as anything, it simply states that some people criticise him and his statements as anti-Hindu, something which has been shown to be backed up. I have no personal interest in this topic at all other than assisting Wikipedia in moderating an edit war. Also the Wikipedia article didn't state anything about anti-Hindu until April of this year, so how that can have possibly affected the blog entries, newspaper reports and other associated comments, editorials and reviews made prior to that date I am completely at a loss to explain without proof of the existance of time-travel. So far you have given no real reason why the line "some critics have accused his statements of being anti-Hindu" cannot be in the article other than accusing Wikipedia and other people of insisting on calling him anti-Hindu. Ben W Bell talk 13:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have till now seen none of your claims being backed up .All those so called back up are your Original research as per WP:NOR and violates WP:Source if not abuses it.Thanx.HW 14:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, there's nothing there that constitutes original research, and nothing that violates WP:Source. You seem to have some reason why it shouldn't be included. Please tell us the reason so it can be discussed, this is after all supposed to be a discussion. If there is a good reason it shouldn't be included then please tell us, but continually quoting policies that havent' been broken isn't a discussion. Ben W Bell talk 14:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RS,it clearly states such claims has to be backed up by reputed sources which excludes self published sources (like blogs),extremist websites like political or religious media. HW 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:RS. Just because something has a strong POV is not a reason to discount it. Self published sources aren't excluded as most material on the internet is self published. Newspapers publish their own stories, people post their own views. Self-published facts are to be treated carefully, but self-published opinions are an entirely different matter. If they have an adgenda then that needs to be taken into consideration, but that isn't a reason to discount their views. plus the point that is being made, and the sources providing it, are not providing fact they are providing an opinion. That these opinions are held and shown to be held is a fact, but they are still claims and opinions. As a result there is nothing in there to discount these opinions or prevent them from being mentioned in the article. Ben W Bell talk 15:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Very true , but if these claims/opinion are unbiased and help in discovering something positive in a person;not when we can see the clearcut agenda of abusing someone,which is the case here.HW 15:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

Holywarrior, what policy will you cite here to support the exclusion of his comments from the main article.nids(♂) 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't blv in repeating same thing again and again. No comments for now.HW 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I could see it now, Ben seems to be innocent here phps he has made his views about Kancha seeing his so called quotes.Infact you should go and view those attached citations,you will be get idea how sideway views has been deliberately highlighted to malign him.HW 15:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection if you write -- he fiercely condemns hinduism , but you must not write Hindus.HW 15:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh! how many times must this be repeated? We do not say he is an anti-Hindu. Merely that people have called him as such.Hkelkar 16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor observation from a drive-by editor, but I keep seeing "his critics", which to me implies that all of his critics hold a certain view. That could be giving undue weight to a minority opinion, as well as drawing a conclusion (OR). It may need to be qualified in some way, such as "one of his critics", "several critics", "most critics", as appropriate. Sources for it should be qualified too, ie., if it is an op-ed, the article should identify it as such. Crockspot 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair observation."Several of his critics" sounds like a good correction (and true, given the refs). The first article has parts in the first person, therefore it can be interpreted as an op-ed, so I'll add that in.Hkelkar 15:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Expand

On a second note to User:Ben W Bell, do you feel it's ok to expand on the anti-Hindu statement by mentioning the specific incident mentioned in the magazine article, or do you feel that merely making the "critics call him anti-Hindu [citation][citation][citation]" is enough? Please tell me what you think. Thanks.Hkelkar 16:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, what about Elst's criticism of "Why I am not a Hindu" (the bit where he alleges that it is rabidly anti-Brahman and similar to Der Sturmer)? Since there is a section devoted to praising the book. Shouldn't I mention Elst's criticism to balance it out?Hkelkar 16:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Declaration

I declare that I won't be directly involved in editing this article, my activities wd be limited to talk page only(if needed).Since community has chosen to protect the controversial version of the page i leave the fate of page and its repercussion to be handled by them(perhaps they are capable).I will also see to it different standards are not applied to different pages.People advocating this version sd not shy away in asserting on other pages too.Thanks.HW 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means, do what you feel you must. I wish you well, my fellow Hindu.Hkelkar 16:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I consider my involvement in this page to be a failure as I wasn't able to reach a consensus between the parties. For that I am sorry. However considering the comments posted above I am willing to remove the protection on the page as I believe the edit warring has ceased here. I will not make any changes to the article myself but the alterations discussed above do need to be made to the article. I wish you all the best of luck in your future endeavours. Ben W Bell talk 07:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Brahmanism

I thought we'd agreeed to remove this from the intro on the grounds that there wasn't actually any references to the group calling itself Anti-Brahmanism? Ben W Bell talk 07:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

reason for changing quote

I gave the reason in the edit summary, but since this seems like such a contentious issue, i'll expand on that here: the article said "you get 'exact replicas...'". While this is literally taken from the source given, it is misleading. Here's the relevant text from the reference:

“ ...move the hairlocks of the Brahmin villains from the back of the head to just in front of their ears, and you get exact replicas of the anti-Semitic cartoons from the Nazi paper Der Stürmer. ”

So, while the words "exact replicas" are there, that's not quite what the quote means. I therefore changed it to "nearly 'replicas of'". --Storkk 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me.Hkelkar 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC from WP:BLPN

There is significant WP:NPOV#Undue weight going on in this article. That said, nothing appears defaming and requires immediate action. The discussion hasn't been editing for 10 days, and will be archived. Electrawn 02:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Ilaiah has been largely resolved with the majority agreeing with the mediation of User:Ben W Bell. See talk page of article. Please don't remove consensus edits. I have provided source to claims made by Hindu groups of DFN being an anti-Hindu org.Hkelkar 03:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)1

Apologies to stepping on contentious edits. To be fair to the subject, please humanize the biography. I suggest all editors look at template:biography for a start. Three sentences about the man? Paragraphs of criticism and no supporting views? Person is a Poltical Science chairman yet a Works section is missing? Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy should be helpful. Good Luck. Electrawn 04:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

All very good points. His works are discussed in the article (his book "Why I am not a Hindu"). There are no refs abvailable for his pol-sci stuff as he seems to be relatively non-notable in the area. Again, David Duke (who has a PhD) and Louis Farrakhan (who is also highly educated) are ample precedents as their "works" in their specific desciplines are also not discussed much. Ilaiah is not dehumanized here at all. What part of the article says that he is not human? It is implicitly understood that all personalities discussed on wikipedia are human unless stated to the contrary, which has not been done here. He is very human, his views are those of some humans.Hkelkar 04:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, "Writing for the enemy" is not a declared wikipedia policy, only an essay. In any case, we have presented Ilaiah's side too. We have put in his response to accusations of sectarianism etc, charges made by the governing authorities of Osmania University that he has strongly denied (an the article reflects that he denies them).Hkelkar 05:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of see alsos

I have removed some of the See also links for a few reasons. A) Some of the links are already linked within the article, when this is the case they shouldn't be included in the See also B) a couple of them I removed I couldn't see how they were directly relevant to the person in questions, if they are not directly connected and related then they shouldn't be in see alsos, it's not a list of other things you may be interested in. Ben W Bell talk 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment.Hkelkar 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re added Indian Caste System to See also links

Ben I'm glad you remove some of the ridiculous see also links on the page that User:HKelkar introduced, and I was polite enough to not contest, but I don't know why you removed Indian caste system? If you're not aware, this is the whole system that Kancha Ilaiah if fighting against and will give a reader a better overview of how it works. Thanks--Kathanar 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ilaiah is attacking Hindus, not the caste system (which is also practiced by Muslims and Christians in India, see Indian Caste System for details).Hkelkar 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually his "attacking" hindus is a attack against the caste system which happens to be what their grievance is, as well as the product of the vedic hindu brahminical religion. It is hard to believe that you cannot fathom that connection, which means that you are just trying to be difficult.Btw another point that seems hard for you to fathom, muslims and christians practicing the indian caste system (only in India). have either been assimilated into hindu cultural practices or practice their faith while maintaining a hindu culture, this is not the norm, but the exception. All hindus(except western converts, and even some of them claim high caste status) have caste(and do not include buddhism, sikhism, or jainism they are considered separate religions) Not all muslims and christians have caste, so my definition it is still a "hindu" system not a muslim or christian system. Hopefully that clears it up for you, thanks --Kathanar 17:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. You are wrong. Muslim Castes are divided into Qoms as detailed in Islamic fatwas, as well as the Ashraf/Ajlaf divide, which is about Ashrafs who are said to be descendants of Mohamed vs the "inhuman" (read the Fatwa-i-Jahandari) Ajlafs. That has absolutely nothing to do with Hinduism but with islam and Islamic fatwas. Plus, the Muslim caste system in Yemen, where the Yemenese untouchables (al-Akhdham) are treated as subhuman by the other Yemenese, has nothing to do with Hinduism either. So you're quite wrong in the assertion that he wants to fight the caste system. He expressly attacks Hindus. If you read the Himal reference, even MUSLIMS have criticized him for being anti-Hindu.Hkelkar 17:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This article already links to Indian Caste System, so a 'see also' link is unnecessary. — goethean ॐ 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note where in article is the a link to Indian caste system, thank you --Kathanar 17:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made the link more clearly visible. — goethean ॐ 17:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it now, there is only one link in the whole article, not links as you stated earlier. It might need to be put in another sentence for context, as his whole struggle is agains the caste system and shouldn't just be made a side note for a attempt to discredit his involvement in Dalit rights. Thanks again.--Kathanar 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous! Would you also say that Louis Farrakhan is involved in Black rights? Would you say that David Duke is involved in White rights? There are many people who are legitimately involved in Dalit Rights, such as politicians in Parliament and other anti-Caste people (including Hindus in R.S.S., by the way), Ilaiah is not one of them.Hkelkar 18:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The introduction of the David Duke article uses Duke's own words to describe his position and then the words of critics, also. It would be good to apply a similar format to this article if possible. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Ilaiah describes himself as an "Emancipator of Dalits" (Yeesh!) and the article says as much. David Duke is a better propagandist than Kancha Ilaiah and does a better job of espousing rhetoric and so is more quotable than Ilaiah's tantrums.Hkelkar 19:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You're treading very dangerous ground here, making comparisons to David Duke and such, very defamatory.--143.111.60.146 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? I am neither defaming David Duke nor Kancha Ilaiah. If you hink that comparison to Duke is defamatory that means that YOU are defaming David Duke and have just committed a violation of WP:BLP. How's about you get a login and face the music my dear anonymous friend?Hkelkar 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that there was more than one link to Indian caste system. I said "The article already links...". In that sentence, "links" is a plural verb predicated on the singular subject "article", not a direct object. — goethean ॐ 18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I misinterperted, Thank you for adding another indian caste system reference link--143.111.60.146 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition, Christian Priests in India have cited passages from the book of Genesis in the Bible to justify descriminating against the Dalit Christians. There are passages in the Bible that refer to the Cannanites as an "inferior tribe" or "inferior race" as translated by Dominican and Cistercine Priests. In South Indian villages Christian priests often regard Dalit Christians as descendants of the Cannanites of the Levant and so segregate them in separate pews, separate churches, don;t allow them to join church-choirs etc.That has nothing to do with Hinduism either. Jat Sikhs segregate castes or "Jats" on the basis of their interpretation of Sikh scripture in the Guru Granth Sahib, not Hindu scripture.Hkelkar 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you will need to cite the part about christian priest in India, especially if you are going to make such outlandish remarks--143.111.60.146 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Easy, just look at the Caste articles on wikipedia, plus google for Pat Robertson's comments on Christian racism (he loves it actually). There are many articles on the web that showcase these things. Plus, anecdotally, I have heard such remarks from high-caste Christian Priests in Panaji,Goa and T'Puram, Kerala. I have also spoken to many Dalit Christians who are NOT happy about this sort of thing and want to cecede from Church Casteism.Hkelkar 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there seems to be an effort to remove references to Caste system which is what all this is about. ManasShaikh (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)