This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the concept of Hindu revivalism is here associated with her name, do we know if she is a Hindu? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 16:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me park a quotation here: [1]
The term 'Hindu' as a religious designation was developed by the Muslims after they had invaded the country in the second millennium A.D.[49] For the Muslims it served to designate these aliens whom they conquered, and whose not being Muslim was of course now for the first time significant. It retained for some time its geographical reference: 'Indian', 'indigenous', 'local', virtually 'native'. And the indigenous groups themselves also began then to use the term, differentiating themselves and their traditional ways from these invading Muslim foreigners. It covered all such groups: those whom we now call Hindus, but also Jains, Buddhists, and all the others.
Never before, however, had an organized, systematic, and exclusive community carrying (or being carried by) what was in theory an organized, systematic and exclusive idea arrived violently from the outside to reject all alternatives and to erect a great conceptual wall between those who did and those who did not belong.A boundary between non-Muslims (followers of indigenous ways, 'Hindus') and Muslims was sharply drawn. Yet on the other side the continuation of such boundaries so as to demarcate off a 'Hindu' community from other Indian groups was not clear.
We, the westernized elites, are at fault for having reified Hinduism. It can't be reified. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Found this in a footnote of Blom Hansen: [2]
The late Girilal Jain, former editor of the prestigious The Times of India, turned in the late 1980s into a wholehearted supporter of the RSS and its associated organisations. Jain developed in his many articles in various newspapers the point that the assertion of 'Hindutva' (Hinduness) really was the assertion of the indigenous intelligentsia against a culturally alienated political and intellectual establishment in India. The established intelligentsia, which the BJP derides as 'sarkari' intellectuals (government-sponsored intellectuals), had with its western education and adoption of socialist and secular ideals removed itself from the true popular ethos and hence delegitimised the Indian state, Jain argues. In a sociological sense, Hindutva was a kind of 'revenge of the vernacular elite'. Historically the RSS has enjoyed considerable support among intellectuals and teachers in schools and colleges in rural areas and smaller towns all over northern and western India. These posts often served as vantage points for recruitment of young boys for RSS shakhas and other RSS-related activities. (footnote 21)
This is, I think, a fairly accurate, though incomplete, portrayal of his ideology. In The Hindu Phenomenon, Jain also talks a lot about civilization renewal and stuff like that, which is missing in this description. But both of these are the perspectives of an outsider and sympathiser, not that of an insider. So, they are still not enough to characterise him as a member of Hindutva.
The civilizational renewal stuff is what I call "revivalism". People like him hark back to a golden past, which they see as an honourable one (i.e., not a xenophobic one), and returning to it in some form will strengthen India and make it a better place. Jain also probably thinks of this as a necessity because that is the "true India", whereas the westernised intellectuals are false prophets, who will eventually lose out when the "vernacular elite" rises up and takes control. Sure enough, this generates a backlash from the westernized intellectuals. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Meenakshi Jain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Shaswata, can you clarify your issues with the current version ? Regards, ∯WBG converse 18:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Reception section very harshly criticizes her work by citing well known left wing sympathizers (Nussbaum, Sundar and others). Seven paragraphs have been dedicated criticizing her work, while last one praises her work. If you compare this with the Wikipedia pages of other Indian historians such as Thapar or Guha, you won't find such vitriolic criticism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spt24 ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I don't buy this to be honest. It reads far more like a rabid polemic more than anything else. I don't think that there's scholarly consensus for this at all, considering she's a professor at a prestigious university and has published papers in reputable journals on top of writing acclaimed books. I don't know much about her but it's quite obvious that this page is in need of balance. Spt24 has a point where all other pages of Indian historians that I could find were all written in a much better way. A cursory look at her works shows that she's written on the Ayodhya dispute, and so I suspect this may be down to partisanship and politics rather than neutral editing. In terms of reliable sources, I wouldn't consider Nussbaum one in this context considering she's an American philosopher with nothing to do with India at all. It would also be far better to have an actual historian critique her work rather than Nussbaum who cannot evaluate whether it's good history or not. I am also perplexed as how you can label a historian 'left' or 'right' wing. That makes no sense whatsoever - history has little to do with political leaning. Allegations of being involved with the RSS are quite frankly ridiculous. It's like including a snippet on Niall Ferguson's page saying that his work on defending the British Empire have been used by fringe groups like the BNP. Associating Jain with Hindutva, a literal fascist movement and calling her work propaganda as a result is also hugely suspect. There probably is good criticism of her work but I find it hard to believe that the sheer polemic of this page reflects it. John.k.newton ( talk) 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I think you may have misunderstood what I said. Nussbaum is not a historian, and therefore cannot make a judgement on the history contained in the book nor her approach as a historian. You would need a historical degree to do that and furthermore some expertise in Medieval Indian history. We can certainly keep her observation about Jain not having formal historical training - you don't need any expertise to critique that and it has value. I would also change (merely for protocol reasons) the language to 'she claimed' rather than 'she found' for example. You cannot simply insert her work (however much merit it may have) as assertions. Nandini Sundar's critique can probably stay given that she's a sociologist, although probably the second sentence only. Even then, I find it rather bizarre to link a genuine scholar and historian to a fascist movement inspired by Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.k.newton ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
What's more, Kancha Ilaiah's assertion first of all seems extraordinary partisan (I still don't quite understand how you can be a 'right' or a 'left' historian, quite frankly I've never heard of this concept outside of India), but even if we take it at face value it's still false as there is enormous scholarly consensus on how the modern caste system that exists today is largely as a result of the British (Susan Bayly, Nicholas Dirks, and de Zwart are prominent sources here). John.k.newton ( talk) 11:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Quoting a full passage from Martha C. Nussbaum's critique of Meenakshi Jain is unnecessary and potentially gives undue weight to a specific aspect of the criticism. The excerpt, as presented, seems to focus on the negative aspects of Jain's work without providing a balanced view. I argue for a more nuanced approach that considers the full context of Nussbaum's critique.
By quoting a full passage from Nussbaum, there's a risk of misrepresenting the depth of her assessment. Including the complete passage would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of Nussbaum's views, revealing whether there are any positive or nuanced aspects acknowledged in Jain's work. This, in turn, would foster a more informed and fair discussion about the merits and limitations of Jain's historical analysis.
I believe it's crucial to encourage scholarly dialogue and avoid an overly one-sided representation. The goal should be to present a balanced evaluation of Meenakshi Jain's work, incorporating both criticism and potential commendations that may be present in Nussbaum's assessment. This approach promotes intellectual honesty and a more accurate understanding of the scholarly discourse surrounding Jain's historical narrative. Alexandria Bucephalous ( talk) 14:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The quote consists of literally at most three sentences. Fewer, actually, since they are fragments of sentences, with careful use of ellipsis to avoid exactly the problems you point to.
It kinda seems like this change is motivated solely by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 16:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
IHR is published by ICHR which has become a propaganda unit for the Hindu Right. Perhaps, it is not that every single article/review in IHR can be dismissed outright but given Jain's leanings, it is obvious that the review in question fails RS/DUE. TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the concept of Hindu revivalism is here associated with her name, do we know if she is a Hindu? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 16:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me park a quotation here: [1]
The term 'Hindu' as a religious designation was developed by the Muslims after they had invaded the country in the second millennium A.D.[49] For the Muslims it served to designate these aliens whom they conquered, and whose not being Muslim was of course now for the first time significant. It retained for some time its geographical reference: 'Indian', 'indigenous', 'local', virtually 'native'. And the indigenous groups themselves also began then to use the term, differentiating themselves and their traditional ways from these invading Muslim foreigners. It covered all such groups: those whom we now call Hindus, but also Jains, Buddhists, and all the others.
Never before, however, had an organized, systematic, and exclusive community carrying (or being carried by) what was in theory an organized, systematic and exclusive idea arrived violently from the outside to reject all alternatives and to erect a great conceptual wall between those who did and those who did not belong.A boundary between non-Muslims (followers of indigenous ways, 'Hindus') and Muslims was sharply drawn. Yet on the other side the continuation of such boundaries so as to demarcate off a 'Hindu' community from other Indian groups was not clear.
We, the westernized elites, are at fault for having reified Hinduism. It can't be reified. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Found this in a footnote of Blom Hansen: [2]
The late Girilal Jain, former editor of the prestigious The Times of India, turned in the late 1980s into a wholehearted supporter of the RSS and its associated organisations. Jain developed in his many articles in various newspapers the point that the assertion of 'Hindutva' (Hinduness) really was the assertion of the indigenous intelligentsia against a culturally alienated political and intellectual establishment in India. The established intelligentsia, which the BJP derides as 'sarkari' intellectuals (government-sponsored intellectuals), had with its western education and adoption of socialist and secular ideals removed itself from the true popular ethos and hence delegitimised the Indian state, Jain argues. In a sociological sense, Hindutva was a kind of 'revenge of the vernacular elite'. Historically the RSS has enjoyed considerable support among intellectuals and teachers in schools and colleges in rural areas and smaller towns all over northern and western India. These posts often served as vantage points for recruitment of young boys for RSS shakhas and other RSS-related activities. (footnote 21)
This is, I think, a fairly accurate, though incomplete, portrayal of his ideology. In The Hindu Phenomenon, Jain also talks a lot about civilization renewal and stuff like that, which is missing in this description. But both of these are the perspectives of an outsider and sympathiser, not that of an insider. So, they are still not enough to characterise him as a member of Hindutva.
The civilizational renewal stuff is what I call "revivalism". People like him hark back to a golden past, which they see as an honourable one (i.e., not a xenophobic one), and returning to it in some form will strengthen India and make it a better place. Jain also probably thinks of this as a necessity because that is the "true India", whereas the westernised intellectuals are false prophets, who will eventually lose out when the "vernacular elite" rises up and takes control. Sure enough, this generates a backlash from the westernized intellectuals. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Meenakshi Jain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Shaswata, can you clarify your issues with the current version ? Regards, ∯WBG converse 18:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Reception section very harshly criticizes her work by citing well known left wing sympathizers (Nussbaum, Sundar and others). Seven paragraphs have been dedicated criticizing her work, while last one praises her work. If you compare this with the Wikipedia pages of other Indian historians such as Thapar or Guha, you won't find such vitriolic criticism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spt24 ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I don't buy this to be honest. It reads far more like a rabid polemic more than anything else. I don't think that there's scholarly consensus for this at all, considering she's a professor at a prestigious university and has published papers in reputable journals on top of writing acclaimed books. I don't know much about her but it's quite obvious that this page is in need of balance. Spt24 has a point where all other pages of Indian historians that I could find were all written in a much better way. A cursory look at her works shows that she's written on the Ayodhya dispute, and so I suspect this may be down to partisanship and politics rather than neutral editing. In terms of reliable sources, I wouldn't consider Nussbaum one in this context considering she's an American philosopher with nothing to do with India at all. It would also be far better to have an actual historian critique her work rather than Nussbaum who cannot evaluate whether it's good history or not. I am also perplexed as how you can label a historian 'left' or 'right' wing. That makes no sense whatsoever - history has little to do with political leaning. Allegations of being involved with the RSS are quite frankly ridiculous. It's like including a snippet on Niall Ferguson's page saying that his work on defending the British Empire have been used by fringe groups like the BNP. Associating Jain with Hindutva, a literal fascist movement and calling her work propaganda as a result is also hugely suspect. There probably is good criticism of her work but I find it hard to believe that the sheer polemic of this page reflects it. John.k.newton ( talk) 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I think you may have misunderstood what I said. Nussbaum is not a historian, and therefore cannot make a judgement on the history contained in the book nor her approach as a historian. You would need a historical degree to do that and furthermore some expertise in Medieval Indian history. We can certainly keep her observation about Jain not having formal historical training - you don't need any expertise to critique that and it has value. I would also change (merely for protocol reasons) the language to 'she claimed' rather than 'she found' for example. You cannot simply insert her work (however much merit it may have) as assertions. Nandini Sundar's critique can probably stay given that she's a sociologist, although probably the second sentence only. Even then, I find it rather bizarre to link a genuine scholar and historian to a fascist movement inspired by Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.k.newton ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
What's more, Kancha Ilaiah's assertion first of all seems extraordinary partisan (I still don't quite understand how you can be a 'right' or a 'left' historian, quite frankly I've never heard of this concept outside of India), but even if we take it at face value it's still false as there is enormous scholarly consensus on how the modern caste system that exists today is largely as a result of the British (Susan Bayly, Nicholas Dirks, and de Zwart are prominent sources here). John.k.newton ( talk) 11:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Quoting a full passage from Martha C. Nussbaum's critique of Meenakshi Jain is unnecessary and potentially gives undue weight to a specific aspect of the criticism. The excerpt, as presented, seems to focus on the negative aspects of Jain's work without providing a balanced view. I argue for a more nuanced approach that considers the full context of Nussbaum's critique.
By quoting a full passage from Nussbaum, there's a risk of misrepresenting the depth of her assessment. Including the complete passage would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of Nussbaum's views, revealing whether there are any positive or nuanced aspects acknowledged in Jain's work. This, in turn, would foster a more informed and fair discussion about the merits and limitations of Jain's historical analysis.
I believe it's crucial to encourage scholarly dialogue and avoid an overly one-sided representation. The goal should be to present a balanced evaluation of Meenakshi Jain's work, incorporating both criticism and potential commendations that may be present in Nussbaum's assessment. This approach promotes intellectual honesty and a more accurate understanding of the scholarly discourse surrounding Jain's historical narrative. Alexandria Bucephalous ( talk) 14:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The quote consists of literally at most three sentences. Fewer, actually, since they are fragments of sentences, with careful use of ellipsis to avoid exactly the problems you point to.
It kinda seems like this change is motivated solely by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 16:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
IHR is published by ICHR which has become a propaganda unit for the Hindu Right. Perhaps, it is not that every single article/review in IHR can be dismissed outright but given Jain's leanings, it is obvious that the review in question fails RS/DUE. TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)