Talk:Ethnic conflict in India
|
|
I would like to see this page moved to Communal conflict in India. Any seconds? DanKeshet
- Not until you explain what "communal conflict" is. I thought the problem was Hindus and Moslems destroying each other's temples, as well as general bad will and mistrust between those two religious and/or ethnic groups. What's the point of the proposed name change? --Ed Poor
- Dan, I think your meaning is crystal clear (I'll be embarrassed if I am wrong, but tell me) -- we think of "Hindu" and "Muslim" and "Sikh" as religions, not strictly speaking "ethnic groups." Nevertheless, I wouldn't move it. I do not think the problem is that these conflicts are technically between members of religious communities rather than ethnic groups; I think the problem is that in English the word "ethnicity" is really used very sloppily as a gloss for all sorts of ethnicities. Indeed, the real problem is that "identity" is a very complex issue and identities are not neatly sorted into mutually exclusive categories such as "racial," "national," "ethnic," "religious," "political," etc. A lot of what people think of as "ethnic" conflicts (e.g. Hutu versus Tutsi) are not clearly or strictly speaking "ethnic."
- In short, "Communal conflict" would probably be a better overarching category for many of the conflicts covered by Wikipedia articles. But rather than changing many other articles, and also defying common usage, perhaps it would make more sense to incororate into this article (or add a link to another article that would include) a discussion of the relationship between religious and ethnonational identity in India? Slrubenstein
---
As it stands this page sucks and needs to be massively rewritten, since it's basically a crappy list of events in Gujarat... but if rewritten to a proper discussion of Hindu/Muslim violence, it MIGHT belong in Communal conflict. There's something inherently NPOV about making a page discussing Communal anything, because communal is a coded word used to describe the behavior of Hindu nationalists without using the words "Hindu nationalist". The word is rarely used to describe Christian missionary activity or anything Muslims might do. Not sure about this. Graft
- I don't like code words -- unless they are properly explained. Why can't we bring things out in the open? --Ed Poor
slr: yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying. Graft: are you saying that "communal" is or isn't from the Neutral Point of View? If you're saying it isn't neutral, are you saying it isn't neutral because we don't explicitly acknowledget that the violence is coming from Hindu Nationalists in the title? What would you think would be a better article title? DanKeshet
- Err, that should have said "not NPOV", my bad. I say this because the people that use the term "communal violence" and talk about "communal anything" in the context of India are almost exclusively leftist critics of Hindu nationalists (who are accused of the crime of "communalism"). So, having an article about "communal conflict" suggests we're coming at it from that angle (which isn't so far from the truth given the current state of the article). Subtle point, maybe. I don't know what a better title would be. Religious conflict, maybe? Graft 19:28 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)
Let's be careful about coming at major conflicts from any angle, even that which says "people shouldn't kill each other over piddling little differences that Americans couldn't care less about" -- hmm, I'm rather ethnocentric myself... --Ed Poor
- Ed, rather than characterizing what is going on in India today as conflicts over "piddling little differences," even in jest, perhaps you should refrain from commenting on this issue until you know more about the history of these conflicts in India. You do not need to tell anyone here to strive for NPOV, it is evident to me that both DanKeshet and Graft are striving to do just that. Slrubenstein
- Gosh, Slr, it seems I can't write hardly a word without you taking issue with it. Perhaps I need a more bland writing style. I didn't say that the conflicts are piddling -- rather that we should not dismiss them as piddling, merely because Americans might think so. Alas, that my tone belied my meaning! --Ed Poor
- Ed, that's precisely what Graft was saying, that if we use the word "communal," that will imply the page is a leftist analysis, and therefore we shouldn't. Really, you're "NPOV'er than thou" act gets tiresome quickly. DanKeshet
- I'm sorry to agree with you, er, sorry that you didn't realize I was agreeing with you!
Removed from article:
- Conflict between different ethnicities and religions in India, especially between the dominant Hindu and Muslim populations. Over the last decade, the focal point of Hindu-Muslim conflict has been the ethnic cleansing of 500,000 Kashmiri Hindus from Kashmir in 1990 followed by the destruction of Ayodhya, a Muslim mosque in 1992. This mosque was built on top of Hindu temple of Lord Rama by a Muslim invader in the 16th Century.
- In 1992 an Kosovo style ethnic cleansing was unleashed by Islamic terrorist from Pakistan, with the help of ISI, the Paksitani intelligence service. Their goal along with operatives from Al-Queda and Talbian was cleansing the region of non -Muslim population. The intent to establish a pure Islamic state in Kashmir, along with dismemberment of India. Thousands of Kashmir Hindu women were gang raped, burnt and may thousands Hindus killed, which lead to an exodus of 100% of the minority population, or 500,000 Hindus from the region.
Iv'e heard a figure of 300,000 refugees but nothing about 100% of the minority population. This text needs a major NPOV work-over and fact checking before going back in. Both sides are guilty of many terrible things and the author of the above cut-out two paragraphs that talked about attacks against Muslims. --mav
I think it is short sighted to not mention Islamic fundamentalism, the spark for this conflict and also the cause for the resurgence of Hindu nationalism in India. This is the quote from the US State Dept 2001 Human Rights reports, “Muslim militants have driven 95 percent of Hindus in the Kashmir valley (Pandits) to seek refuge in camps in Jammu & New Delhi”.
I have visited the region and the only Hindus left number about 100, and most of them have converted to Islam to stay alive. The "official" population of Kashmiri Hindus was 300,000 before the conflict, which means 100% were cleansed.
Ignoring Kashmiri Hindus and the history of Ayodhya as the birthplace of Lord Rama is distortion. If we really have to give blow by blow accounts of violence on Muslims, then why not talk about the violence on Kashmiri Hindus by the Islamist.
http://www.kashmir-information.com/Atrocities/index.html
Taking Gujrat, and the very recent event in isolation when there are such conflict every few years since mid 80s is naive.
- Tmedrano: this article has pretty clearly yet to be written. If you'd like to help re-shape it into an actual article, that would be much appreciated. I'd only say, please avoid a tit-for-tat rundown of every case of violence. When we have an actual article, little snippets like the ones in the current article will be incorporated into them and probably cut down greatly. DanKeshet 18:57 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)
| Contents |
NAVAKALI YUDHA
NAVAKALI YUDHA
What conflicts can be mentioned on this page?
Is this page intended for conflicts over religion alone, or can we also include other conflicts here? Does "conflict" mean that there was actual physical violence or can we also describe tensions between groups that haven't killed anybody. For instance, do accounts of inter-caste troubles belong here (too many to mention)? What about inter-regional or inter-linguistic conflicts (Bihari people attacked in Mumbai over jobs, anti-Hindi demonstrations in mid-1960s Tamil Nadu)? Do separatist movements belong here (Naxalite, Assam, Kashmir...)? What about incidents that fall in more than one category (Khalistan - Indira Gandhi - Sikh massacre - Kanishka)? -- Brhaspati 11:38, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
---
The article lacks complete neutrality. Are riots same as ethnic conflict? Do people have conflicts everyday over "ethnic" lines? And if so is ethnicity defined by religion or place of living. This article seems to be biased since it does not cover all the riots eg. the riots between 1950-1989. And all the "ethnic" conflicts - case in point it does not cover the Hindu Pandits being driven out of their homeland at gun point from Kashmir.
The article needs major cleanup. It starts with Gujarat riots and ends up in a reverse chronological order. However all "ethnic" conflicts are not mentioned. Further is the term "ethnic" conflict same as the term "riots"? This needs to be disambiguated.
shouldn't this be religous conflict instead?
Everyone in India is an Indian. The main conflict that is being discussed here is a religious one. Nothing to do with ethinicity here.