Talk:Criticism of Hinduism

Over-zealous content moderation and practical nonexistence of article

@Kautilya3: This article has practically nothing in it beyond some blurb about caste being bad. Does that mean Hinduism was seen as some perfect religion by all? No. But if you see no criticisms of Hindu practices as belonging in the "criticism of Hinduism" article then delete the article overall if nothing fits in it.

This article has absolutely nothing about Ambedkar and it is well-known he was a fierce critic of Hinduism whatever the RSS may say. And not just for caste. Annihilation of Caste for instance, or Riddles in Hinduism. Yet there is no mention at all of criticism of Hinduism by him or his followers at all. Why? He definitively linked caste with Hinduism and said he would leave the religion. This seems to fit the bill for the article. His philosophy is highly-influential in contemporary scholarship and social life today. I'm not asking to make an edit but for someone to do a deep dive into scholarly analysis of his work and look at his criticisms and put some in there.

Periyar too. He was also a fierce critic of how Brahminical scriptures treated lower castes and women. It is common knowlege he criticised Hinduism. Nothing about him either.

I have a feeling some editors see the addition of any criticism of Hinduism as adding inaccurate colonial scholarship, but the criticism is there from Indian sources as well. It's not like there hasn't been any criticism of Hinduism before: there were many Sramana sects that criticised Hinduism well-before Muslim rule. Criticism was there in Medieval period from people like Ravidas and Basavanna. If you are afraid of this page being brigaded by people with agendas edit-warring then place protections. But just because some may call us "anti-Hindu" doesn't mean we shouldn't actively try to document criticisms of Hinduism in this page. C1MM (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is written by enthusiasts, who care about particular subjects and devote their time it. It doesn't get written just because somebody mandates that something should be written for political purposes. During the AfD discussion (which you can find linked at the top), I said precisely that I know that such an article should exist, but I don't know of any Wikipedian capable of writing it. I guess I am now vindicated.

Criticism of caste is fine, but it can only be given a proportionate WP:WEIGHT. When the main body is missing, we can't fill it up with criticism of caste. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@C1MM: please help build the article up - see the previous discussions and provide feedback. In the meantime I think we should definitely include Riddles in Hinduism by Ambedkar in the further reading section. If we have consensus on that I (or you) could put in an edit request. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll start by adding the section on Sramana beliefs. Starting from the beginning is always a good starting point. Then we can move on to the Bhakti movement (especially Ravidas and Kabir) and then to the modern period with Phule, Ambedkar and Periyar, and others. C1MM (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good plan. I look forward to seeing your content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Kautilya3. Also, the first step in expanding the article NEED to be defining Hinduism. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• May be too many Indians are editors here in Wikipedia and are unable to take objective criticism. Many are proud of their Hindu heritage, which they like everybody to think as the best religion the world. So naturally, they would like to delete this article or keep it bare bone as it is now. This article used to be much bigger in the past, but some editors got offended and started removing content, to the point that nothing exists now. Most of the time the reasons given for removal were based on sentiments, "You don't know anything about Hinduism", or "You cannot blame Hinduism for caste system", "Child marriage and sati has nothing to with Hinduism" (not inspired by the mythology), "Erotic idols on Hindu temples" are evidence of freedom of expression in India and has nothing to do with Hinduism (ahead of western counterparts!), "Wendy Doniger is a biased scholar, her opinions are not needed here", "There is no lack of logic in Hindu mythology" and so on. Not far away from sentiments from politicians about India discovering plastic surgery 5000 years ago (when Siva was unable to put back Ganesh's head, but was forced to use elephant head). May be editors need to look into the subject logically, not emotionally. Editors can learn a thing or two from Malayalam Wikipedia article on this, where they seem to be tolerant toward criticism on any religion (Islamic article criticism is even bigger in Malayalam wiki). 2001:56A:F9B3:C800:78C4:F18B:2E95:FCD2 (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Who on Earth has produced scholarship criticizing erotic temple sculptures? How can the presence/absence of logic (a very ambiguous and anachronistic term) in Hindu mythology be even criticised? We cannot base our article solely on the rhetoric of activist-reformers like Ambedkar, Periyar etc.

I have reservations against equating criticism of Sati to that of Hinduism. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Periyar ganesh idol.jpg

Periyar breaking Ganesha idol in public.

TrangaBellam, it's a matter of fact that Periyar publicly had an anti-Hindu sentiment. Let me share something. It's a publically documented event where Periyar broke an idol of Ganesha. So, yeah, basing criticism from Ambedkar or Periyar is similar to if not worse than basing Criticism of Islam with Trump's version of Islam or works of Robert B. Spencer for instance. WikiLinuz (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

terrible source

Some of the earliest criticism of Brahminical texts, including the Vedas and especially the Dharmashastras, comes from the Sramana (or renunciate) traditions, including Buddhism and Jainism. Sramana scholars viewed Brahminical philosophy as "heretical." In particular Sramanas denied the sruti (divine) nature of the Vedas and opposed sacrificial rituals which were at the heart of Brahminical philosophy at the time.

why does this line exist its such a wrong line

Patrick Olivelle, a professor of Indology and known for his translations of major ancient Sanskrit works, states in his 1993 study that contrary to some representations, the original Śramaṇa tradition was a part of the Vedic one.ISBN 978-0195344783 He writes,

Sramana in that context obviously means a person who is in the habit of performing srama. Far from separating these seers from the vedic ritual tradition, therefore, śramaṇa places them right at the center of that tradition. Those who see them [Sramana seers] as non-Brahmanical, anti-Brahmanical, or even non-Aryan precursors of later sectarian ascetics are drawing conclusions that far outstrip the available evidence.

— Patrick Olivelle, The Ashrama System — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk • contribs) 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Note "in that context." Olivelle writes about a Vedic context, not the heterodox sramana movement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

HRW report

@Joshua Jonathan:

1. source 1 — Only talks about "reconverted" to Hinduism.
2. source 2 The source cites to Ainslie T. Embree (1988). Sources of Indian Tradition: From the Beginning to 1800. Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231066518., Hawthorn, G. (1980). "Caste in Contemporary India: Beyond Organic Solidarity". Modern Asian Studies. Pauline Kolenda Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company. doi:10.1017/S0026749X00006958. and Satish Deshpande (1996). "Reviewed Work: Caste: Its Twentieth Century Avatar by M. N. Srinivas". Sociological Bulletin. 25 (2). JSTOR 23620229., but neither of those sources mentions caste as a "defining feature of Hinduism". So, how it's considered valid? WikiLinuz (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not really difficult to find sources that define caste as a central feature of Hinduism. At the same time, it is not difficult to find scholarship in opposition. That being said, my considered opinion is that all articles about "Criticism of Religion XYZ" should be nuked for serving little useful purpose. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

But the revision diff which was restored violates MOS:QUOTEPOV. The quotes are from HRW, but when we read it, it suggests as a "matter of fact". And citing to HRW's quotes as "a defining feature of Hinduism" (which itself cites sources I mentioned above) is also WP:UNDUE. I'm more inclined towards properly attributing the quotes to HRW to avoid POV writing. WikiLinuz (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Attribution is a very good idea, I think. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of cited content

@TrangaBellam: this edit is unjustifiable. If you think books written by Kancha Ilaiah are not WP:RS, I'd like to hear that argument first before you start unilaterally deleting his work. Moreover, even if it was not RS, there is no justification for removing all other sources in all these sections, such as the BBC source, and texts about the caste system that I didn't even write, but were already in this article. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Could you please explain yourself? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nederlandse Leeuw, please explain your edits.

How is the section on Hindutva relevant? There's a peculiar section on Hierarchism, sourced to Kancha Ilaiah - what are his scholarly credentials and how is so much content DUE? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

For one thing, if you don't understand my edits, you should ask why I made them before you remove them. There certainly is no reason to remove more text than I added, and then hold me responsible for text I never wrote.

Second, as I have explained in the text itself: if Hindutva is an inherent part of Hinduism, then any criticism of Hindutva is thereby also criticism of Hinduism as a whole. And so, if the claims of Hindutva groups that there has always been a prohibition on cattle slaughter and beef consumption in Hinduism are true (which is in dispute), and this causes them to clash with non-Hindus (mostly Muslims) who do habitually slaughter cows to eat beef, then this is a reason to criticise Hinduism.

Third, Kancha Ilaiah holds many academic credentials, including a M.A. in political science, a M.Phil. and a Ph.D. All of that is mentioned in his Wikipedia biography in plain sight. I have made sure that every claim he has made that I mention here is relevant to criticism of Hinduism. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Ilaiah's commentaries were certainly UNDUE. I'm in accord with the removal; it should rather be discussed. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 05:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Ilaiah is widely recognised as one of the most influential critics of Hinduism, so his views are certainly relevant to this debate. However, I can understand that a good balance is needed, on the one hand by adding RS from notable other critics who agree with him, and on the other hand other points of view which may differ from Ilaiah or that touch on topics he hasn't discussed. Would it be DUE if I can cite other RS who support his view? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Would it be DUE if I can cite other RS who support his view? - No.
WP:BALANCE states, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. It's the opposite of what you've described: you should include other RS that rebuts Ilaiah's commentaries. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 06:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, how about what I've written just now? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

PS: For example, works by Periyar and B. R. Ambedkar such as Annihilation of Caste? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please reach a consensus with other editors before writing it there. We shouldn't buttress our article on activists like E. V. Ramasamy or Ambedkar; it best fits at caste system in India, not criticism of Hinduism. And, regarding this edit, it's still UNDUE to include a wall of text on Ilaiah's opinions. He's not a scholar in Hinduism. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 07:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile for you to look at Talk:Criticism of Hinduism/Archive 1, and see past discussions concerning these matters, as you've never edited this page before. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 08:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Kancha Ilaiah is a legitimate critic of Hinduism. But he has no credentials in history at all, and most of his historical claims are bogus. It is hard to filter the valid material from his writings. For example, the dominant castes in South India are all Shudra castes, not Brahmins. Brahmin ascendance in South India is a modern phenomenon, no older than the British Raj. Even then, it was quickly countered by powerhul "non-Brahmin movements" within a few decades and the Shudra castes regained their old prominence. None of this has anything to do with Hindusim by the way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Criticism from Buddhism

I think our article is missing crucial criticisms from Buddhism. For instance, from the Buddha; our article on Buddha summarizes various points at Gautama Buddha#Critique of Brahmanism. We could create a new section titled "Criticism from Buddhism" and insert those in there. Would like to know the opinions of other editors. (@TrangaBellam, Joshua Jonathan, and Kautilya3:) WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 03:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Our article" it is not. Some axe-grinders said we need such a page, even if it doesn't have any content.

I agree that Buddhism was the first critic of Hinduism, but it was apparently Vedic Hinduism at that time. And Buddhism was agnostic. Much more criticism was directed at the social order, just as such criticisms do today.

Please feel free to add a section. I will be glad to learn. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

* I believe this info was already intended to be put in - there is an editor's note in the Historical Background section that mentions criticisms of Brahminism from Buddhism (along with other changes and criticism that came with time). Please do put it in - at least as a summary of the Gautama Buddha section. -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Critique is not criticism. I will again urge interested people to consult McGovern, Nathan (January 2019). The Snake and the Mongoose: The Emergence of Identity in Early Indian Religion. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-064082-8.

Overall, I am in opposition unless I see some exceptionally well-written and nuanced content. You can try drafting at sandbox, though. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)