Talk:Persecution of Hindus

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December, 2021

The following addition to "Mughal" section was removed without due reasoning,

There are however reports of Akbar plundering temples and defacing hindu idols after his conquest of Chittoor. Subsequent Mughal Rulers like Shah Jahan are also reported to have demolished temples, broken down hindu idols and killed Brahmins during his rule.

References

History

False history of Aurangzeb is seems to be added in Wikipedia,must be corrected by any impartial historian to maintain credibility of Wikipedia 223.233.83.104 (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs in "Medieval India"

There is little clarity and flow in this section, in my view.

As an example:

“ While there is a tendency to view the Muslim conquests and Muslim empires as a prolonged period of violence against Hindu culture, Durant called the Muslim conquest of India "probably the bloodiest story in history" in between the periods of wars and conquests, there were harmonious Hindu-Muslim relations in most Indian communities, and the Indian population grew during the medieval Muslim times. No populations were expelled based on their religion by either the Muslim or Hindu kings, nor were attempts made to annihilate a specific religion. ”

It says "While there is" which suggests the claim is more disputed than it might appear. Then it gives a historian who in fact agrees with the claim that it's the bloodiest in history. But then it ends with the a citation that disputes that particular claim.

The succeeding paragraphs are similar, with over-quotations of Romila Thapar's point of view, which have little to do with historical facts. As an example, the quotation of upper caste Hindus being lumped together with lower caste Hindus, and their perception of history and persecution as a result. This could be put into a different section if needed, but as an example, the historian Durant is not an "upper caste Hindu", and there are many other western Indologists quoted throughout the article which reduce Thapar's claim to more of a viewpoint epistemology than factual.

This is yet another quotation from the opening paragraphs:

“ She questions what persecution means, and if it means religious conversions, she doubts that conversions can be interpreted as forms of persecution. According to Thapar, it is quite correct to mention that Muslim iconoclasts destroyed temples and the broke images of Hindus but it should also be mentioned that Muslim rulers made donations to Hindu sects during their rule. ”

The article, specifically, is about Hindu persecution. Why does it need to be mentioned in the introductory paragraphs that Muslim donations were also made to Hindu sects? It does not invalidate Hindu persecution at their hands. And why does the question of "what persecution means" need to be mentioned when there are many factual claims in the proceeding paragraphs?

I'm writing this to point out that there's been clear edit warring going on, based on politics. I'd like this section to be edited with consensus, and the points of view can be moved to a later section. Indosociology111 (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've also changed the claim that "Hindutva allies" dub it a Hindu holocaust, when the sources had only one journalist who said so. This isn't the place for proving your political point. Not all claims about Hindu persecution are coming from "Hindutva allies", and there's an equal amount of misinformation from the "other side", if I may. Indosociology111 (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

china

This article attempts to say that the uyghurs who rioted and killed hindu merchants did so cause they "married" uyghur women. That is not true they charged insane amounts of interest on uyghurs who burrowed to survive. Then when they couldnt pay they broke into uyghurs families homes and took their women and children hostage in what was called "house-breaking". where they were raped and treated like rubbish. uyghurs freed the captive uyghur women and children. ~2026-11264-24 (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Potential Inaccuracy

I do not think it fair to include instances of communal violence in this article. I don't feel they count as "persecution" in the strict sense, which is usually the action of a government or state. It is my opinion that these would best be moved to a different article, and I request that this be considered. ResearchAgent007 (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Copious References to Fabrications

Most of the cited chronicles written by the communities whom conquered South Asia are actually fabrications. What therefore actually happened? Islam was spread in South Asia primarily as a result of the activities of iterant Sufi mystics whom triggered a simultaneous revival of Hinduism (at this time, it was a minority religion due to the vast masses of South Asians converting to Buddhism). 22:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)TTCUSM ~2026-40110-68 (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)