Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

Add the term 'Freedom Fighter' for Swatantryaveer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

It seems someone who edited this page has a problem with Veer Savarkar. A freedom fighter is not allowed to be recognized as a freedom fighter, and a special condition is put to prevent others from doing so. Add the adjective 'Freedom Fighter', as well as 'Social Reformer'. Please demand if any evidences or citations required, I will present them accordingly. India2024 (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

He is not a a freedom fighter, just a hindutva activist who would bow down to the british for his needs. Witchilich (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. That's why Wikipedia avoids both terms, preferring neutral terms like "activist" which describe what he is known for without assigning a moral value to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If so, then we can call him a nationalist, that's also a neutral term and has been used to describe Gandhiji in his wiki page. CrazyCosmos007 (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Savarkar is described as founder of Hindutva, which is contrary to Indian nationalism. Capitals00 (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Misleading Information

The information mentioned here about Veer Savarkar is very misleading and not correct and has been written by someone who wants to portray him as an extremist who wronged the nation. Please re-write this page, post fact checking from appropriate sources 10:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.197.225.179 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia doesn't really work by completely rewriting articles in response to vague general concerns about neutrality, especially long articles like this one that are the result of many editors' work over many years, and many prior discussions on this page. If you can write down any specific ideas about improving specific content, editors would be happy to consider your suggestions. If you think it's misleading and not correct, what specific edits would you make to fix it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hindu atheism

There's a significant bit of code producing the text "Savarkar was an atheist" in the first paragraph that has seen some edit warring recently:

• Special:Diff/1212526377: "Removed the line stating that Savarkar was an atheist. Since he was a Hindu, he cannot be an atheist."
• Special:Diff/1212615177: restored, "deletion of sourced content"
• Special:Diff/1212987066: removed, no edit summary
• Special:Diff/1213078573: restored, "unexplained removal of sourced content; edit has been reverted previously"
• Special:Diff/1214222966: removed, "Far complex than a 'label'"

For background, "Savarkar was an atheist" was added in this edit on 15 December 2019, and the source was added on 28 August 2020; it's been stable since then. The argument that he can't be an atheist because he was Hindu doesn't hold up: our article Hindu atheism explains the concept of atheism within Hindu philosphy. The provided source ([1]) contains this text:

Nothing expressed Savarkar's tough-minded atheism better than his refusal to allow any Hindu religious ritual or rite when his wife died, notwithstanding public protests and Satyagraha by some of his followers. He did not even want her body to be brought home, saying that it was “no use lamenting over the dead body” (Keer Citation1950, 529–530).

Besides the citation, the article pretty clearly (in the "religious and political views" section) describes how Savarkar worked to divorce Hindu identity from religion, and was a critic of Hindu religious practices. I don't think this removal was valid and certainly hasn't been adequately justified, but I'd like to hear other opinions before I restore it. (Courtesy ping Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, PSDA1) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

On this issue, Janaki Bakhle has this to say:

The separation Nandy suggested between religion and nation was also not quite right. Savarkar was not truly or fully an atheist, as much as he projected himself as a rational, modern thinker. Neither, however, did he fully abjure the fundamentality of the ideas of sacred and profane, transposing them onto a modern political ideology that simultaneously drew its power from religious traditions and affective modes of representation, while recommitting them all to a modernist project of national unity and strength.

This is not so much the issue of "Hindu atheism", but rather that there is ambiguitiy in his religiosity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Inaccurate information

This page needs to be re-written based on historical facts again. Sarvarkar never proposed the two-nation theory, he was infact against it. Please correct this. 2607:FEA8:4AD9:CE00:A79:F6CE:FCC8:2E51 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous editors writing "fix it!" on talk pages rarely accomplish anything. You'll get better results if you actually propose how to fix it, by making a proper edit request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sikhistan

This whole paragraph "In his Ahmedabad addressal, he supported Two-nation theory. The Hindu Mahasabha under Savarkar's leadership endorsed the idea of India as a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation). Savarkar assured the Sikhs that "when the Muslims woke from their day-dreams of Pakistan, they would see established instead a Sikhistan in the Punjab." Savarkar not only talked of Hindudom, Hindu Nation and Hindu Raj, but he wanted to depend upon the Sikhs in the Punjab to establish a Sikhistan." Is extremely misrepresented.savarkar was the founder of hindutva and the concept of akhand bharat inspired by mazini and shivaji.its stupid to even suggest savarkar advocated for two seperate nations.savarkar saying "there are two antognastic nations living together" does not mean he advocated for a seperate nation for hindus and muslims. The last sentence is extremwly shady."wanted a sikhistan".i.mean seriously?please decide if he advocared for akhand bharat or khandit bharat.the article contradicts itself multiple times and the single source used for this sentence is not reliable.the author is not reliable at all.more sources required.looks like thus article has vested interests hellbent on showcasing savarkar as the reason for partition which is extremely stupid.why not blame savarkar for khilafat movement too? Or for mopla. Must be him.

I request neutral admims and editors to take a look into this.@Kautilya3 @TrangaBellam @Borgenland @Ivanvector 117.222.200.239 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Sock of Observer1989

It looks like it was partly a primary source and partly a Jinnah's commentary. [2] And it is not covered in the body. I am removing it as WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not a "partly primary source" but a book written by Shamsul Islam, a well-known expert on Savarkar having written articles on him even in the recent times on Savarkar for other publishers.[3][4] I have added one more source. Orientls (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

But the content is not based on Shamsul Islam. It was just added as a WP:FAKE citation to PRIMARY-sourced content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

And this source, published by an unknown publisher, has only 8 citations on Google Scholar. Hardly counts as an authority of any kind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Not "WP:FAKE" because the book by Shamsul Islam verifies the content.[5] The publisher is not unknown. It is Media House, a reliable source. 8 citations on Google scholar are good enough since Savarkar is researched by almost nobody except the analysts of Hindutva. The cited quote of Savarkar can be itself verified from this 1941 primary source. Orientls (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

1. The sentence in the lead is a verbatim copy of Jinnah's statement. It is not summarising Shamsul Islam. Please don't pretend not to understand this!
2. Shamsul Islam's book is a popular book talking about "myths and facts", not an academic work. It in no way represents scholarly consensus that could be appropriate for the lead.
3. To decide what can go into the lead, if at all, you need to find three or four high-quality sources, see how they approach the issue, and then summarise them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Show me the difference between the wording (on lead) and the summary provided by Shamsul Islam. The meaning is still the same.

Shamsul Islam is a totally valid source. He was a professor of political science at Delhi University and he has also written for The Hindu on Hindutva.[6] There are 2 sources already provided. Now here is another one which confirms in its own words that: "To counteract the Pakistan demand the Sikhs were incited by the Hindu Mahasabha to put forward the idea of Sikhistan."[7]

Do you have any sources to counter the fact that Savarkar did not discuss Sikhistan? If you don't then you should not oppose the restoration on lead. Orientls (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)