Talk:Hindutva terrorism

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2025

While Islamic terrorism is part of Kuran where it says any non believer of Islam can be punished. there is no such content in Hindu Vedas. Hindu terrorism or saffron terrorism is created for political agenda. ~2025-39776-29 (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Newbzy (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

hindu terrorism is a political propaganda, all the acuse were acquitted by the court sp stop using such words ~2025-41273-76 (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit request regarding the updation of acquittals regarding the 2008 bombings to all seven accused by NIA court on 31st July 2025

This article mentions 2008 western India bombings or Malegaon bombing. But, that section is not updated. In 2025, all seven accused in the bombings, including Pragya Thakur ji and Lt. Col. Purohit ji, were aquitted and cleared all charges. This is not reflected in the article. Here is the source:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/2008-malegaon-blast-case-special-nia-court-acquits-all-seven-accused-including-pragya-thakur-lt-col-purohit/article69877097.ece

I request that this is reflected in the article, in a un-biased, neutral way. VividJaiHind (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, the 2nd Explanatory Footnote is framed in such a way that "the Abhinav Bahart has been charged of the attack and the individuals are hindu millitants", which is absolutely wrong since all the people were aquitted in every case mentioned above. That should also be edited. VividJaiHind (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done — EarthDude (Talk) 07:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. After much-extended time for discussion, there does appear to be a consensus in favor of the move to a title that more precisely describes the subject. It is noted in the discussion that sources do exist using the proposed title. Scope issues can be resolved by regular editing to clarify the scope of the article itself. BD2412 T 13:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Hindu terrorism → Hindutva terrorism – As usual, all of the cited sources only target Hindutva groups for the incidents. None of them target Hindu religion. Using the term "Hindu" will require a fair number of scholarly sources but they are still not available. I am also debunking the closure of the last RM (a supervote) below. Anatoliatheo (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• The last closure, made in favor of only 6 opposes compared to 17 supports for the page move, was nothing more than a blatant WP:SUPERVOTE. The arguments provided in favor of opposing the page move by the closure rely on absence of any qualified reliable sources that have used the present title, but instead rely on superficial search results. This is clear from the discussion made on the closure's own talk page.

The opposition relied only on:

1) Falsification of sources. See the debunking of their sources here.

2) Superficial search results.

3) "Other stuff exists" argument, claiming that there exists "Christian terrorism", but ignoring that there exists no "Sikh terrorism", "Buddhist terrorism", "Muslim terrorism" and more.

4) False claim that changing the article title will automatically confuse the readers over the incidents that are treated as "Hindu terrorism" despite not being a single source describing any of the listed incidents as "Hindu terrorism".

While the supports were firm. They provided reliable sources to support the page move and their sourced argument that Hindutva and Hinduism are both different, also remained unchallenged. Anatoliatheo (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. "Hindu" is an unrelated category and a 19th century construct that has no relationship with this topic of extremist violent acts. It is confined to the ideology of Hindutva. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support per above. I could also never make sense out of the current title. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. "Hindutva terrorism" is more common and accurate. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support (welcome to the yearly pilgrimage of this RM request) article titles should reflect the subject actually discussed in the article, "Hindutva terrorism" appears to be the more fitting title. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per the last extremely lengthy RM, WP:COMMONNAME, and against the nom which does not accurately summarize the last RM. This is an entirely different scope; not all terrorism committed for a religion is adhering to the specific ideology of Hindutva. A lot of the page isn't. This would be a totally different article. This is additionally by far the WP:COMMONNAME as shown in the last RM. The sources were never "debunked". According to ngrams, "Hindu terrorism" as a phrase is so much more common than "Hindutva terrorism" that the latter does not even register! A search of serious scholarly sources show that "Hindu terrorism" is far more discussed. If we're not going to be basing it off of RS, what are we basing it on? PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment on WP:ECR: This page is under the extended confirmed restriction, based on Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia#Indian_military_history_extended-confirmed_restriction broadly construed. (The ArbCom decision was after the previous RM. I don't blame anyone here for not knowing.) Non-EC editors are not eligible for RM discussion in ECR topic areas (see clarification). The nominator is not extended confirmed. The RM should run its course but non-EC comments should be considered stricken. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thats wrong. The topic does not involve military or caste, thus WP:ECP is not required for editing this area. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  The extent to which terrorists, militants, paramilitaries, or combatants are "military" certainly could be debated (and certainly has been, across the globe). Or, for that matter, the extent to which events of 2007 are "history". Given the established principle that contentious topics are broadly construed (WP:CT), though, I think a debate over how to construe the topics would be a nonstarter. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Building a tenuous connection is unhelpful. How about you check the WikiProjects of this article? They dont have military history. It is because Hindutva terrorism lacks any confontration with the actual military, thus it does not fall under ECP requirement. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  The restriction says "broadly construed" so I think it's fairly clear that it does apply here.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Doesnt mean anyone taking up weapon to disturb public order would automatically fall under Indian military history. Otherwise with your logic, Organised crime in India is also Indian military history when it is not. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 05:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support - The last RM cannot be cited because it is was just a supervote. I would still say the sources describe politics by Hindutva groups as motivation behind these incidents. As Audrey Truschke describes, "Hindutva and Hinduism are distinct. Hindutva is a narrow political ideology whereas Hinduism is a broad-based religious tradition. Many Hindus oppose Hindutva ideology, both in India and in the US-based diaspora, and it is offensive to conflate the two." Founder of Hindutva Vinayak Damodar Savarkar also said Hinduism isn't same as Hindutva. That means the distinction between Hindu and Hindutva is very important and any rejection of this fact would be gross error. >>> Extorc.talk 21:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per PARAKANYAA, and will continue to do so unless their highly reasonable objections to the move are addressed in a satisfactory manner. I did not have much of an opinion when I began to read this discussion, but I'm wholly unconvinced by the seemingly huge support that actually consists of quite dubious rationales for a major scope-changing move inside of a contentious topic area. Also, the RM was created by a non-ECP account that has been inactive for almost exactly a year, with the last activity being related to the last RM on this very page. I also have some more concerns, and I would just like to caution editors against forgetting that this is WP:NOTAVOTE. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 06:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

PARAKANYAA's objection is baseless and misleading. Can you cite any reliable sources that use the term "Hindu terrorism"?

Also, as proven above, this subject does not fall under Indian military or caste history. It does not require anyone to be ECP. Shankargb (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

How is it baseless and misleading? Hindu terrorism is FAR more common. To copy from the last discussion, "

All highly reliable sources that use primarily Hindu terrorism.

There are 200+ results for Hindu terrorism, 60 for Hindutva terrorism, 70 for Saffron terrorism on google scholar. Hindu terrorism is far, far more common of a term. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

And in addition, it is so much more common that ngrams (a tool showing the frequency of words and phrases in a certain corpus) does not even have a record for hindutva terrorism! . It has one for Hindu terrorism, showing that it is far more common.

Where is your proof that Hindutva terrorism is the common name? That is baseless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per PARAKANYAA, Maltazarian and prior RMs on this topic. As the article states in its lead, the scope of this article is "terrorist acts carried out on the basis of motivations in broad association with Hindu nationalism or Hindutva". By definition, therefore, changing it to Hindutva would be a narrowing of scope, and not one that appears justified. The title is also consistent with Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism. As noted before, this RM shouldn't have been started by the OP, as they are not extended confirmed; obviously it can continue as many have contributed, but that needs to be borne in mind. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• It says "Hindu nationalism or Hindutva" not Hinduism. Similary, it is "Islamic terrorism" not "Muslim terrorism". Your comment has enough factual errors. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are no factual errors. The scope of the article is all terrorism carried out in the name of the Hindu faith, not just the narrower Hindutva. Obviously that does not in any imply that all Hindus are implicated in this, any more than the equivalent Christian and Islamic articles do. As for Muslim vs Islamic, generally Muslim refers to an individual, while Islamic refers to the faith itself. Hinduism and Christianity don't really have separate adjectives for those two concepts, Hindu and Christian would cover both.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Just like there is no article on don't have "Sikh terrorism" but Khalistan movement, it is more sensible to say that proposed title is not only more WP:COMMONNAME but also accurate. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Those opposing the proposed name rely only on the previous RM which was just an absurd supervote. I am still not seeing any basis to retain a title which is completely unsupported by the WP:RS. Scholarly sources also say "Hindutva terrorism". Shankargb (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support The most cases of violent and terrorist incident has been motivated by hindutva action rather than Hinduism.Hindutva fends on idea of indian culture is superior to others by opposing foreign and liberal tactics and also attacking foreign religions like islam and most of their motive is to preserve right wing conservative hindu culture rather than making their religion or god superior to others.Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: While there is a clear numerical majority in support of moving, I am relisting for further discussion because this is not a vote, because the arguments against moving are weaker, and because there was a consensus against moving last year. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @BilledMammal: what do you mean when you say "the arguments against moving are weaker"? I'd have thought it's the support arguments that are weak - the proposed title fairly clearly does not describe the scope of the article, so I'm not sure there can ever be a consensus to move, irrespective of how many people support it. Most of the arguments in support seem to centre on either relitigating the previous RM or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments rather than identifying the most precise title that defines the scope of the article. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support It is undoubtedly accurate as shown by the high quality references introduced above by Shankargb. Lorstaking (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The nomination rests almost entirely on the premise that the May 2025 close was a WP:Supervote, but that premise does not survive reading the close. The supporters had not established "Hindutva terrorism" as the WP:Commonname. The venue to contest it was WP:Mrv, which was never pursued. Resurfacing it here one year later, on the same sources and the same Hindutva/Hinduism framing, is what WP:Titlechanges counsels against absent a change in the sourcing.

The previous discussion's evidence favoured the current title and was never actually rebutted. The recurring answer, that some of those hits merely mention or criticise the term, misreads WP:Commonname, which tracks what reliable sources call a subject, not which sources endorse the label as accurate. The onus for a move rests with the proposer, not with those in favor of the current title.

There is also a WP:Precision problem no one has yet raised. The proposed title asserts an ideological attribution in wikivoice that does not reflect the sources for at least one core incident. For the Samjhauta Express bombing, the article records not only that the accused were acquitted but that the UN Security Council and the United States attributed facilitation to a Lashkar-e-Taiba financier, who are unaffiliated with Hindutva. A categorical title covering that incident states more than the sources support.

The current descriptive title, covering acts "in broad association" with Hindu nationalism, accommodates the uncertainty without overclaiming. Finally, the parallel move at Islamic terrorism to "Islamist terrorism" was itself closed as not moved, which is where WP:Consistent points here too.

LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is going to rely on a supervote to determine what is a common name. See the sources provided by Shankargb above. Can you provide any similar quality of sources to establish that illogical "Hindu terrorism" is more common? Thats the only way you can prove what is a common name. Nom has sufficiently debunked the supervote right below their initial move request.

The equivalent to "Hindu" is "Muslim", not "Islamic". Just because someone happened to propose a more narrow term and failed, it doesn't mean that you get to misrepresent the meanings of these words. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Shankargb and ZDRX. The cited sources on the article are also in line with the proposed title. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose, per the substance of my position in a previous RM. "Saffron Terror" has ambiguity problems, and "Hindutva terrorism", while more clearly descriptive in my personal opinion, has issues of both jargon and lack of usage. Constructions of the form "[Religion] terrorism" are obvious oversimplifications, but they are used by reliable sources, which we follow, including in this case. In scholarly usage, for example, "Hindu terrorism" is approximately thrice as common, per google scholar results. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.