![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I rewrote the lead on 17th November [1]. My lead is based on the Jaffrelot article and Subhash Gatade's book (mentioned in the Bibliography). Nobody objected to anything till today when, all of a sudden, it has been hacked to death without any discussion. I am not happy about this. I will take it to WP:NPOVN. So, please state your objections here so that people can look at them (not edit summary lines, which is a lousy place to put discussion anyway). Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Shrikanthv: The terrorism stuff isn't really my forte. I am more of a politics guy. I was led to this article because we had to use "saffron terror" in some other context (probably Gujarat, can't locate it right now), and noticed that this page sucked. I did some research into it, found the Jaffrelot article and the Gatade's book, and rewrote the lead based on what I learnt from them. I don't think the old discussion is particularly relevant here, because it never rose above the level of P. Chidambaram, and the editor who instigated that discussion is now indefinitely blocked (no idea why).
Regarding your apprehension that talking about Hindu nationalist organisations somehow talks about "hindu religion belief," I have no idea how you got that impression. I don't know of anybody here or elsewhere that confuses the two. Neither are the acts supposedly against "other religion members", because the first victim of such acts was Mahatma Gandhi himself. Gatade's book has an entire chapter on it. Terrorism has no logic.
Regarding the use of "alleged," I don't find it necessary. We use "alleged" when we have to attribute acts to particular individuals, because individuals have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Here the BLP criteria govern that. Organisations don't have a presumption of innocence. Neither do they have BLP criteria. So, if reliable sources say they did it, we say they did it.
I have no idea what the sentence "However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been clearly determined[1]" is trying to talk about. The reference said nothing about any motivations, nor does the article say anything about it. So by your own logic about the lead summarising the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. If the motivation wasn't Hindu nationalism, we won't call it "saffron terror" or "Hindutva terrorism". So, what is this sentence talking about? It doesn't make any sense.
You have said previously that my sentence makes the organisations look bad. That is not our problem. We are not here to make anybody look good or look bad. They look whatever they look based on what they are and what they do.
So, basically, I don't see any justification for any of the changes made to my lead. Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Please continue our discussion with AFD Shrikanthv ( talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Please continue our discussion with AFD Shrikanthv ( talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with Sitush somewhat in that, as this is an article about the neologism, sources should be specifically using the term in order to be included. Otherwise the article could become an indiscriminate list of any acts of violence involving Hinduism. -- NeilN talk to me 14:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, Sitush, the term "saffron terror" is not important at all. I would be quite happy to rename this article to Hindutva terror, which is the other term used. In fact, Gatade seems to have switched deliberately from 'saffron terror' to 'Hindutva terror'. In any case, I don't want to get bogged down by terminology. It is of no consequence. It is the phenomenon that matters. That phenomenon is, quite unequivocally, that the Hindutva ideology is spawning terrorists. We should all be alarmed about it, and resist all attempts to air brush it. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, Sitush, Thanks for your advice. Wise words! Coming back to the topic, this page might have been about the term "saffron terror" originally, but it is equally about the phenomenon right now. The information is out there in the public domain and it will find its way here. I don't see how we can stop it, even assuming that it makes sense to stop it. So, the best thing to might be to start a new page on "Hindutva terror" from scratch and base it on good sources so that it doesn't degenerate into another fist fight. I will think about it. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Please, keep a track of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Saffron terror as well. A lot of interesting discussions are happening there as well. Thinkmaths ( talk) 08:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Saffron terror. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't you feel it's a misnomer when there is the term "alleged" in almost every line in introduction. When it isn't so sure or just playing on alleged, title must be also alleged, or new title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasishta infowatch ( talk • contribs) 06:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is not neutral and it reflects writer's views rather than conclusions based on the facts. Is should be either edited or removed. 117.234.173.94 ( talk) 23:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Please list the Hindu terror outfits listed by some international bodies like UN or by Indian government or US government. this article is all about some x politician said so. please improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.179.81 ( talk) 09:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
As per investigation by Times Now, the whole saffron terror conspiracy was floated by the UPA government. This is a conspiracy and has no backing anymore. This article therefore needs drastic and significant changes to match the reality as supported by the new investigations.
Reference Links
Kushagr.sharma1 ( talk) 16:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing called "Saffron Terror". It was a conspiracy. Please, either add that it was a conspiracy by the UPA government or kindly remove this article. This does not give the full truth and it is very misleading. Ananya sastry ( talk) 17:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
anyone up to update the article with this latest information. [1] -- Swami16 ( talk) 11:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Kautilya3: restored a undiscussed lead change from 8 May [9] despite heavy discussions in archive [10] [11] and the article itself says on sections such as Saffron_terror#Torture_by_Maharashtra_ATS, Saffron_terror#2007_Samjhauta_Express_bombings and more, that these incidents are alleged but also said to be unrelated to Saffron terror. Per WP:BRD a single misinformed edit from 8 May is clearly not the consensus version for the lead. Capitals00 ( talk) 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_title=
ignored (
help)I request following lines to be added in the end of Malegaon blasts section.
A secret deposition of the Ministry of Defence that was submitted to the court which suggests Lt Colonel Purohit was innocent of the terror charges that are being leveled against him.
source: http://www.timesnow.tv/newshour-shorts/video/lt-col-purohit-saffron-terror-scapegoat/59672 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swami16 ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Why is more text being added about the train attack than the actual subject of the section? [14] -- NeilN talk to me 04:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
"The article is subjective and is open to wide interpretations. For Eg- Gujarat Riots 2002 were the ripple effects of the burning of train (samjhauta Express) by the Muslim community carrying Kar Sevaks. The incident was pre-planned and many kar sevaks were burned alive. Kindly present the true and holistic picture of the incidents. In the majority of riots that took place in India Muslims were the aggressors for Eg- Muzaffarnagar Riots. M6176 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by M6176 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
Saffron terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is subjective and is open to wide interpretations. For Eg- Gujarat Riots 2002 were the ripple effects of the burning of train (samjhauta Express) by the Muslim community carrying Kar Sevaks. The incident was pre-planned and many kar sevaks were burned alive. Kindly present the true and holistic picture of the incidents. In the majority of riots that took place in India Muslims were the aggressors for Eg- Muzaffarnagar Riots. M6176 ( talk) 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I request the editors to rewrite the page after reading following report by Rajat Sharma who is a journalist from India TV.
S Gurumurthy also Exposed Pak’s Hand Behind Samjhauta Blast in 2013 with Crucial Rebuttals
Samjhauta Express blasts: UPA ‘cover-up’ questioned
There is also Times Now News Hour Debate over this issue.
Did UPA 'Discharge' Pakistan's Terrorist? | The Newshour Debate (20th June)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO_8OzYcEgI
Samjhauta Express Blast: Did UPA Compromise India? | The Newshour Debate (21st June)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQRfqsVzRwY
Samjhauta blast: SIMI man’s narco test ‘nails’ Pak angle
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Swami16 (
talk •
contribs)
17:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
--
Swami16 (
talk)
19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
For instance, the US declared a Pakistani national to be involved - US sanctions Pak Lashkar man, cites his Samjhauta blast link
Pakistani Minister Rehman Malik blamed Pakistani Islamists for carrying out the attack at Pak blames India for not providing details about Samjhauta Express bomb blast Talking with media persons here, Malik claimed that Lt.Col. Purohit had hired some Pakistani extremists to carry out the train bombing in 2007. This clearly demonstrates that there were some Pakistan-based Islamists who had been hired to carry out the Samjhauta Express attack.
The Prime suspect for the Bombings were Lashkar-e-taiba (LET) , A United States report declared Arif Qasmani to be involved in the attack. Consequently, after consulting with the United Nations, the United States declared him an international terrorist , How can india be blamed for this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M6176 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The term "Saffron Terror" itself is coined purposely to demean Hindu Religion. It is a result of continuous conspiracy to malign and maim Peaceful Hindu Religion which has a History of Accomodating every other Religion. Hindu religion is the only Religion which never attempted at forcing others to accept it. It is the only Religion without an Expansionist agenda. So this Entire attempt at coining a new Term "Saffron Terror" is absolute attempt at maligning a peace full Religion. Jsdeshmukh1987 ( talk) 17:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be more of a conspiracy theory than of any serious scholarly merit. Most of the cases tagged under Saffron Terrorism are proved to be fake and the term is not taken seriously. It can be had as a historic curiosity explicitly stating that this is a fake movement introduced to defame Hinduism. Instead, deleting the article will make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.201.133.165 ( talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is pure rubbish and must be deleted. Also can anybody explain the existence of non-Hindu places of worship almost in every corner of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.193.194 ( talk) 19:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Someone please correct this nonsense.in the lede: "Saffron terror is ... acts of violence motivated by Hindu nationalism. (...) In some cases motivation [for the acts being the subject of this article???] is ... unrelated to Hindu nationalism."
This is as if the article about birds had such a definition: "Birds are endothermic vertebrates with wings, feathers and toothless jaws. Some vertebrates are not birds."
Non sequitur?
— kashmīrī TALK 07:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Saffron terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, where the majority of victims were Muslims, are attributed largely to "foot soldiers" of the Hindutva movement. [1] The riots are part of aftermath of the burning of Godhara train where Muslim mob targeted specific coach of the train where most Hindu pilgrims who were coming from Ayodhya. 59 people were burnt alive, in which 25 were women and 25 were children. link /info/en/?search=Godhra_train_burning and /info/en/?search=2002_Gujarat_riots [1] Anghanravi ( talk) 18:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
References
The page has no mention of the 1992 Demolition of Babri Masjid, which was one of the most famous acts of Hindu terrorism, and had far reaching national and international consequences. -- I am not an Octopus ( talk) 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing like Saffron terror. RSS helps poor and talks about Nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.76.45.2 ( talk) 12:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Please do read latest Times Now expose on how UPA government pressurized NIA chief to consider Swami Aseemanand interview to Caravan as a truth, but later failed to allow forensic evaluation of the interview recorded on tape.
debate on the same
http://www.timesnow.tv/the-newshour/debate/bhagwat-a-‘terror-suspect’-for-upa/65970
There exists no such thing like Saffron Terrorism. It was invented by UPA as a part of its propaganda to defame Hinduism, Hindutva and groups related to Hindutva like RSS. The truth is that after so much investigation none of the accused was convicted in cases related to Saffron Terrorism and all allegations were politically motivated and accusations against innocents were made to hide its inability to capture its Islamic perpetrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:230F:8886:2AD1:21CD:7998:AB3C ( talk) 07:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC) </ref> Praveen Tiwari, a senior journalist has also written a book The Great Indian Conspiracy after exhaustive research, published by Bloomsbury. An extensive research on communal politics, the book offers indisputable evidence of the 'saffron terrorism' theory as the Great Indian Conspiracy. [1]
In 26/11, before the role of Pakistan came into light, some Congress leader had tried to gains political space to get the electoral benefit by defaming the organization like RSS by accusing them behind the attack,a book named "26/11 : RSS ki Sazish"(RSS's Conspiracy) written by Aziz Burney (Editor-in-Chief of Urdu Sahara newspaper) was released by Congress General Secreatary Digvijay Singh that talks about the hand behind 26/11 Mumbai Attacks and the contents of the book also insinuated that the attacks happened as a result of a joint conspiracy between CIA and Mossad. [2] [3] [4]
Former Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy says that after the terrorist attack on Mumbai, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has suggested a surgical strike but the (then) government resorted to caution and restraint. [5] In August 2009, the then joint secretary of the Indian external affairs ministry T C A Raghavan complained to chiefs of foreign missions that Pakistan was failing to take action against Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Hafiz Saeed and it was making it difficult for India to move forward with “meaningful engagement” in relations with Pakistan. The UPA government stand on tackling Mumbai and other attacks in the country only got diluted further as its term progressed. [6]
Senior Congress leader, Salman Khurshid says in his book 'Understanding Islam in Indian Democracy' that the then Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit did not want an enquiry into the 2008 Batla House encounter in which Indian Mujahideen terrorists were killed, as she felt it would "hijack" the Assembly elections in which she was seeking re-election , It was not just Dikshit but then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Delhi Lt Governor Tejendra Khanna too was against such an enquiry [7]
In Mecca masjid blast, former MHA Under Secretary , accused the government for misusing NIA for protecting the perpetrator He further added that there was no Hindu terror angle in the case and the evidence was engineered. “I had expected it. All the pieces of evidence were engineered, otherwise, there was no Hindu terror angle,” Ex MHA official said. [8]
In February 2016, one of the officer in Ishrat Jahan case, former Intelligence Bureau Special Director Rajinder Kumar, said he was pressured and offered "allurements" to implicate the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the case in an attempt to defame Modi. He said there was a conspiracy against Modi led by a senior Congress leader from Gujarat. [9] [10] [11] Another bureaucrat , RVS Mani had said that he was tortured to sign the affidavit in Ishrat Jahan murder case [12]
Ex MHA under Secretary, RVS Mani in his book Hindu Terror : Insider account of ministry of Home affairs, highlighted the circumstances around Internal Ministry
" At a time when we had the best team in the IAS Division of the MHA, The attitude of the government in power and intent to colour every terror incident as 'saffron' and their ambivalence in acting against the real perpetrators of the terror attacks was making this country a cannon fodder for those with evil designs against India"
— Hindu Terror: Insider account of Ministry of Home affairs [13]
Senior journalist, Minhaz merchant pointed out that government had tried to paint the colour of the terrorist when they need to punish the real perpetrators [14] [15]
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |Publisher=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
Most of the incidents cited are sub-judice. In some of the cases, the Hindu accused have been avquitted by courts and allegations are upon terrorist orgabisations associated with Pakistan. I think Grahm Steines killing incident is the only exception to this general observation.
To comply with NPOV, I suggest two steps:
The article in general reflects the latest developments inadequately. - Mukt ( talk) 02:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Having read so much about "Saffron Terrorism" it is considered unfortunate to link a nature's beautiful gift "safron" with ugly word Terrorism. Though the central idea of the title is very relevant and it is believed to be the most notorious shape of terrorism ever existed, however the connection betwen saffron with terrorism is due peculiar "Gerua" color (resembling color of saffron). It is considered more appropriate to name this ugliest form of terrorism as "Gerua Terrorism". Saleem99a ( talk) 05:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The section has insufficient reasons to be included here. Yes, the victim called it "saffron terrorism". But she is a non-neutral source. We need a neutral source which called this incident as a case of saffron terror. Otherwise the section must be deleted.
By the way, the same consideration must be applied to other incidents. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The section in itself makes absolutely no sense. Is it supposed to be a subsection of some case? Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The entire section on Gujarat riots needs to be removed as there is no source cited which terms it as "saffron terror". The sole reference (Anheier and Juergensmeyer, 2012) has only one occurrence of the term, which is "The so-called saffron terror, which is controversially linked to some extremist Hindu organizations, promises to indicate a new phase in the Hindu-related movements in India. In other words, Hinduism, as practiced in contemporary India, has been re-imagined and re-invented by the forces of modernity, nationalism, and democracy." Bharatiya 29 20:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Panda619 is continuously engaging in an edit war by incorrectly including cow vigilante incidents to this article. Since this is a controversial topic, any major changes like this should be first discussed on the talk page. Bharatiya 29 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
its a POV for saying its not a terror-- nobody denies it is terrorism. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that the killing of Graham Staines was cited as "Saffron terror" by Praful Bidwai who was a left-leaning columnist. Although I am not even entirely sure if his comment is significant enough to be mentioned here, even if it is done it should be attributed to him as it is his personal opinion. Bharatiya 29 20:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Saffron terror be
renamed and moved to
Hindu nationalist terrorism.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Saffron terror → Hindu nationalist terrorism – The suggested term is more self-descriptive. It is also more neutral, since it is more specific: it speaks not about all Hindus, but specifically about Hindu nationalists. . Compare " Nationalist terrorism", Jewish religious terrorism , etc.The use of the neologism may be explained in a separate section. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
So far there are 3 potential votes for an alternative suggestion for the title, " Hindutva terrorism" Let us see other opinions. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
the clean chit was given By supreme court😒the same supreme court who Did shah bano case and even gave area to Wakat board for babri masjid. Akshat1233 ( talk) 07:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Saffron terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vishnu Sooraj ( talk) 11:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hatred towards hindus
This is pure hatred towards hindus there's no article on islamic terror and now on saffron terror. Vishnu Sooraj ( talk) 11:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
He is removing everything with random policy excuses. He is white washing. Many links changed. Example https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/saffron-terror/article6805169.ece and many links in archive. Mynameisarnav ( talk) 18:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
[16] This content was moved to main article Mecca Masjid blast — Echo1Charlie ( talk) 19:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Saffron terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert User:Echo1Charlie's edits, restore to 1037853581
His series of edits have removed content with barely any explanation. He has removed WP:RS sources that simply have moved elsewhere and could've been found with a simple search. When questioned, he has not been forthcoming. As I've detailed in the talk page, the issues with this series of edits are significant enough that they need reversion. Hemanthah ( talk) 07:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I rewrote the lead on 17th November [1]. My lead is based on the Jaffrelot article and Subhash Gatade's book (mentioned in the Bibliography). Nobody objected to anything till today when, all of a sudden, it has been hacked to death without any discussion. I am not happy about this. I will take it to WP:NPOVN. So, please state your objections here so that people can look at them (not edit summary lines, which is a lousy place to put discussion anyway). Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Shrikanthv: The terrorism stuff isn't really my forte. I am more of a politics guy. I was led to this article because we had to use "saffron terror" in some other context (probably Gujarat, can't locate it right now), and noticed that this page sucked. I did some research into it, found the Jaffrelot article and the Gatade's book, and rewrote the lead based on what I learnt from them. I don't think the old discussion is particularly relevant here, because it never rose above the level of P. Chidambaram, and the editor who instigated that discussion is now indefinitely blocked (no idea why).
Regarding your apprehension that talking about Hindu nationalist organisations somehow talks about "hindu religion belief," I have no idea how you got that impression. I don't know of anybody here or elsewhere that confuses the two. Neither are the acts supposedly against "other religion members", because the first victim of such acts was Mahatma Gandhi himself. Gatade's book has an entire chapter on it. Terrorism has no logic.
Regarding the use of "alleged," I don't find it necessary. We use "alleged" when we have to attribute acts to particular individuals, because individuals have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Here the BLP criteria govern that. Organisations don't have a presumption of innocence. Neither do they have BLP criteria. So, if reliable sources say they did it, we say they did it.
I have no idea what the sentence "However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been clearly determined[1]" is trying to talk about. The reference said nothing about any motivations, nor does the article say anything about it. So by your own logic about the lead summarising the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. If the motivation wasn't Hindu nationalism, we won't call it "saffron terror" or "Hindutva terrorism". So, what is this sentence talking about? It doesn't make any sense.
You have said previously that my sentence makes the organisations look bad. That is not our problem. We are not here to make anybody look good or look bad. They look whatever they look based on what they are and what they do.
So, basically, I don't see any justification for any of the changes made to my lead. Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Please continue our discussion with AFD Shrikanthv ( talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Please continue our discussion with AFD Shrikanthv ( talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with Sitush somewhat in that, as this is an article about the neologism, sources should be specifically using the term in order to be included. Otherwise the article could become an indiscriminate list of any acts of violence involving Hinduism. -- NeilN talk to me 14:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, Sitush, the term "saffron terror" is not important at all. I would be quite happy to rename this article to Hindutva terror, which is the other term used. In fact, Gatade seems to have switched deliberately from 'saffron terror' to 'Hindutva terror'. In any case, I don't want to get bogged down by terminology. It is of no consequence. It is the phenomenon that matters. That phenomenon is, quite unequivocally, that the Hindutva ideology is spawning terrorists. We should all be alarmed about it, and resist all attempts to air brush it. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, Sitush, Thanks for your advice. Wise words! Coming back to the topic, this page might have been about the term "saffron terror" originally, but it is equally about the phenomenon right now. The information is out there in the public domain and it will find its way here. I don't see how we can stop it, even assuming that it makes sense to stop it. So, the best thing to might be to start a new page on "Hindutva terror" from scratch and base it on good sources so that it doesn't degenerate into another fist fight. I will think about it. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Please, keep a track of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Saffron terror as well. A lot of interesting discussions are happening there as well. Thinkmaths ( talk) 08:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Saffron terror. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't you feel it's a misnomer when there is the term "alleged" in almost every line in introduction. When it isn't so sure or just playing on alleged, title must be also alleged, or new title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasishta infowatch ( talk • contribs) 06:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is not neutral and it reflects writer's views rather than conclusions based on the facts. Is should be either edited or removed. 117.234.173.94 ( talk) 23:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Please list the Hindu terror outfits listed by some international bodies like UN or by Indian government or US government. this article is all about some x politician said so. please improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.179.81 ( talk) 09:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
As per investigation by Times Now, the whole saffron terror conspiracy was floated by the UPA government. This is a conspiracy and has no backing anymore. This article therefore needs drastic and significant changes to match the reality as supported by the new investigations.
Reference Links
Kushagr.sharma1 ( talk) 16:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing called "Saffron Terror". It was a conspiracy. Please, either add that it was a conspiracy by the UPA government or kindly remove this article. This does not give the full truth and it is very misleading. Ananya sastry ( talk) 17:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
anyone up to update the article with this latest information. [1] -- Swami16 ( talk) 11:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Kautilya3: restored a undiscussed lead change from 8 May [9] despite heavy discussions in archive [10] [11] and the article itself says on sections such as Saffron_terror#Torture_by_Maharashtra_ATS, Saffron_terror#2007_Samjhauta_Express_bombings and more, that these incidents are alleged but also said to be unrelated to Saffron terror. Per WP:BRD a single misinformed edit from 8 May is clearly not the consensus version for the lead. Capitals00 ( talk) 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_title=
ignored (
help)I request following lines to be added in the end of Malegaon blasts section.
A secret deposition of the Ministry of Defence that was submitted to the court which suggests Lt Colonel Purohit was innocent of the terror charges that are being leveled against him.
source: http://www.timesnow.tv/newshour-shorts/video/lt-col-purohit-saffron-terror-scapegoat/59672 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swami16 ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Why is more text being added about the train attack than the actual subject of the section? [14] -- NeilN talk to me 04:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
"The article is subjective and is open to wide interpretations. For Eg- Gujarat Riots 2002 were the ripple effects of the burning of train (samjhauta Express) by the Muslim community carrying Kar Sevaks. The incident was pre-planned and many kar sevaks were burned alive. Kindly present the true and holistic picture of the incidents. In the majority of riots that took place in India Muslims were the aggressors for Eg- Muzaffarnagar Riots. M6176 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by M6176 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
Saffron terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is subjective and is open to wide interpretations. For Eg- Gujarat Riots 2002 were the ripple effects of the burning of train (samjhauta Express) by the Muslim community carrying Kar Sevaks. The incident was pre-planned and many kar sevaks were burned alive. Kindly present the true and holistic picture of the incidents. In the majority of riots that took place in India Muslims were the aggressors for Eg- Muzaffarnagar Riots. M6176 ( talk) 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I request the editors to rewrite the page after reading following report by Rajat Sharma who is a journalist from India TV.
S Gurumurthy also Exposed Pak’s Hand Behind Samjhauta Blast in 2013 with Crucial Rebuttals
Samjhauta Express blasts: UPA ‘cover-up’ questioned
There is also Times Now News Hour Debate over this issue.
Did UPA 'Discharge' Pakistan's Terrorist? | The Newshour Debate (20th June)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO_8OzYcEgI
Samjhauta Express Blast: Did UPA Compromise India? | The Newshour Debate (21st June)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQRfqsVzRwY
Samjhauta blast: SIMI man’s narco test ‘nails’ Pak angle
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Swami16 (
talk •
contribs)
17:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
--
Swami16 (
talk)
19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
For instance, the US declared a Pakistani national to be involved - US sanctions Pak Lashkar man, cites his Samjhauta blast link
Pakistani Minister Rehman Malik blamed Pakistani Islamists for carrying out the attack at Pak blames India for not providing details about Samjhauta Express bomb blast Talking with media persons here, Malik claimed that Lt.Col. Purohit had hired some Pakistani extremists to carry out the train bombing in 2007. This clearly demonstrates that there were some Pakistan-based Islamists who had been hired to carry out the Samjhauta Express attack.
The Prime suspect for the Bombings were Lashkar-e-taiba (LET) , A United States report declared Arif Qasmani to be involved in the attack. Consequently, after consulting with the United Nations, the United States declared him an international terrorist , How can india be blamed for this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M6176 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The term "Saffron Terror" itself is coined purposely to demean Hindu Religion. It is a result of continuous conspiracy to malign and maim Peaceful Hindu Religion which has a History of Accomodating every other Religion. Hindu religion is the only Religion which never attempted at forcing others to accept it. It is the only Religion without an Expansionist agenda. So this Entire attempt at coining a new Term "Saffron Terror" is absolute attempt at maligning a peace full Religion. Jsdeshmukh1987 ( talk) 17:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be more of a conspiracy theory than of any serious scholarly merit. Most of the cases tagged under Saffron Terrorism are proved to be fake and the term is not taken seriously. It can be had as a historic curiosity explicitly stating that this is a fake movement introduced to defame Hinduism. Instead, deleting the article will make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.201.133.165 ( talk) 18:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is pure rubbish and must be deleted. Also can anybody explain the existence of non-Hindu places of worship almost in every corner of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.193.194 ( talk) 19:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Someone please correct this nonsense.in the lede: "Saffron terror is ... acts of violence motivated by Hindu nationalism. (...) In some cases motivation [for the acts being the subject of this article???] is ... unrelated to Hindu nationalism."
This is as if the article about birds had such a definition: "Birds are endothermic vertebrates with wings, feathers and toothless jaws. Some vertebrates are not birds."
Non sequitur?
— kashmīrī TALK 07:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Saffron terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, where the majority of victims were Muslims, are attributed largely to "foot soldiers" of the Hindutva movement. [1] The riots are part of aftermath of the burning of Godhara train where Muslim mob targeted specific coach of the train where most Hindu pilgrims who were coming from Ayodhya. 59 people were burnt alive, in which 25 were women and 25 were children. link /info/en/?search=Godhra_train_burning and /info/en/?search=2002_Gujarat_riots [1] Anghanravi ( talk) 18:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
References
The page has no mention of the 1992 Demolition of Babri Masjid, which was one of the most famous acts of Hindu terrorism, and had far reaching national and international consequences. -- I am not an Octopus ( talk) 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing like Saffron terror. RSS helps poor and talks about Nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.76.45.2 ( talk) 12:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Please do read latest Times Now expose on how UPA government pressurized NIA chief to consider Swami Aseemanand interview to Caravan as a truth, but later failed to allow forensic evaluation of the interview recorded on tape.
debate on the same
http://www.timesnow.tv/the-newshour/debate/bhagwat-a-‘terror-suspect’-for-upa/65970
There exists no such thing like Saffron Terrorism. It was invented by UPA as a part of its propaganda to defame Hinduism, Hindutva and groups related to Hindutva like RSS. The truth is that after so much investigation none of the accused was convicted in cases related to Saffron Terrorism and all allegations were politically motivated and accusations against innocents were made to hide its inability to capture its Islamic perpetrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:230F:8886:2AD1:21CD:7998:AB3C ( talk) 07:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC) </ref> Praveen Tiwari, a senior journalist has also written a book The Great Indian Conspiracy after exhaustive research, published by Bloomsbury. An extensive research on communal politics, the book offers indisputable evidence of the 'saffron terrorism' theory as the Great Indian Conspiracy. [1]
In 26/11, before the role of Pakistan came into light, some Congress leader had tried to gains political space to get the electoral benefit by defaming the organization like RSS by accusing them behind the attack,a book named "26/11 : RSS ki Sazish"(RSS's Conspiracy) written by Aziz Burney (Editor-in-Chief of Urdu Sahara newspaper) was released by Congress General Secreatary Digvijay Singh that talks about the hand behind 26/11 Mumbai Attacks and the contents of the book also insinuated that the attacks happened as a result of a joint conspiracy between CIA and Mossad. [2] [3] [4]
Former Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy says that after the terrorist attack on Mumbai, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has suggested a surgical strike but the (then) government resorted to caution and restraint. [5] In August 2009, the then joint secretary of the Indian external affairs ministry T C A Raghavan complained to chiefs of foreign missions that Pakistan was failing to take action against Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Hafiz Saeed and it was making it difficult for India to move forward with “meaningful engagement” in relations with Pakistan. The UPA government stand on tackling Mumbai and other attacks in the country only got diluted further as its term progressed. [6]
Senior Congress leader, Salman Khurshid says in his book 'Understanding Islam in Indian Democracy' that the then Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit did not want an enquiry into the 2008 Batla House encounter in which Indian Mujahideen terrorists were killed, as she felt it would "hijack" the Assembly elections in which she was seeking re-election , It was not just Dikshit but then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Delhi Lt Governor Tejendra Khanna too was against such an enquiry [7]
In Mecca masjid blast, former MHA Under Secretary , accused the government for misusing NIA for protecting the perpetrator He further added that there was no Hindu terror angle in the case and the evidence was engineered. “I had expected it. All the pieces of evidence were engineered, otherwise, there was no Hindu terror angle,” Ex MHA official said. [8]
In February 2016, one of the officer in Ishrat Jahan case, former Intelligence Bureau Special Director Rajinder Kumar, said he was pressured and offered "allurements" to implicate the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the case in an attempt to defame Modi. He said there was a conspiracy against Modi led by a senior Congress leader from Gujarat. [9] [10] [11] Another bureaucrat , RVS Mani had said that he was tortured to sign the affidavit in Ishrat Jahan murder case [12]
Ex MHA under Secretary, RVS Mani in his book Hindu Terror : Insider account of ministry of Home affairs, highlighted the circumstances around Internal Ministry
" At a time when we had the best team in the IAS Division of the MHA, The attitude of the government in power and intent to colour every terror incident as 'saffron' and their ambivalence in acting against the real perpetrators of the terror attacks was making this country a cannon fodder for those with evil designs against India"
— Hindu Terror: Insider account of Ministry of Home affairs [13]
Senior journalist, Minhaz merchant pointed out that government had tried to paint the colour of the terrorist when they need to punish the real perpetrators [14] [15]
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |Publisher=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (
help)
Most of the incidents cited are sub-judice. In some of the cases, the Hindu accused have been avquitted by courts and allegations are upon terrorist orgabisations associated with Pakistan. I think Grahm Steines killing incident is the only exception to this general observation.
To comply with NPOV, I suggest two steps:
The article in general reflects the latest developments inadequately. - Mukt ( talk) 02:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Having read so much about "Saffron Terrorism" it is considered unfortunate to link a nature's beautiful gift "safron" with ugly word Terrorism. Though the central idea of the title is very relevant and it is believed to be the most notorious shape of terrorism ever existed, however the connection betwen saffron with terrorism is due peculiar "Gerua" color (resembling color of saffron). It is considered more appropriate to name this ugliest form of terrorism as "Gerua Terrorism". Saleem99a ( talk) 05:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The section has insufficient reasons to be included here. Yes, the victim called it "saffron terrorism". But she is a non-neutral source. We need a neutral source which called this incident as a case of saffron terror. Otherwise the section must be deleted.
By the way, the same consideration must be applied to other incidents. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The section in itself makes absolutely no sense. Is it supposed to be a subsection of some case? Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The entire section on Gujarat riots needs to be removed as there is no source cited which terms it as "saffron terror". The sole reference (Anheier and Juergensmeyer, 2012) has only one occurrence of the term, which is "The so-called saffron terror, which is controversially linked to some extremist Hindu organizations, promises to indicate a new phase in the Hindu-related movements in India. In other words, Hinduism, as practiced in contemporary India, has been re-imagined and re-invented by the forces of modernity, nationalism, and democracy." Bharatiya 29 20:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Panda619 is continuously engaging in an edit war by incorrectly including cow vigilante incidents to this article. Since this is a controversial topic, any major changes like this should be first discussed on the talk page. Bharatiya 29 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
its a POV for saying its not a terror-- nobody denies it is terrorism. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that the killing of Graham Staines was cited as "Saffron terror" by Praful Bidwai who was a left-leaning columnist. Although I am not even entirely sure if his comment is significant enough to be mentioned here, even if it is done it should be attributed to him as it is his personal opinion. Bharatiya 29 20:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Saffron terror be
renamed and moved to
Hindu nationalist terrorism.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Saffron terror → Hindu nationalist terrorism – The suggested term is more self-descriptive. It is also more neutral, since it is more specific: it speaks not about all Hindus, but specifically about Hindu nationalists. . Compare " Nationalist terrorism", Jewish religious terrorism , etc.The use of the neologism may be explained in a separate section. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
So far there are 3 potential votes for an alternative suggestion for the title, " Hindutva terrorism" Let us see other opinions. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
the clean chit was given By supreme court😒the same supreme court who Did shah bano case and even gave area to Wakat board for babri masjid. Akshat1233 ( talk) 07:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Saffron terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vishnu Sooraj ( talk) 11:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hatred towards hindus
This is pure hatred towards hindus there's no article on islamic terror and now on saffron terror. Vishnu Sooraj ( talk) 11:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
He is removing everything with random policy excuses. He is white washing. Many links changed. Example https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/saffron-terror/article6805169.ece and many links in archive. Mynameisarnav ( talk) 18:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
[16] This content was moved to main article Mecca Masjid blast — Echo1Charlie ( talk) 19:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Saffron terror has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert User:Echo1Charlie's edits, restore to 1037853581
His series of edits have removed content with barely any explanation. He has removed WP:RS sources that simply have moved elsewhere and could've been found with a simple search. When questioned, he has not been forthcoming. As I've detailed in the talk page, the issues with this series of edits are significant enough that they need reversion. Hemanthah ( talk) 07:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)