Talk:Rajiv Malhotra

Use of potentially biased citations

While adressing Rajiv Malhotra as a Hindutva ideologue, the editor gave the citation of an Article by Scroll.in which is infamous for its Marxist Marxist ideologies. The author of the article too,is involved in Radical Islamic agendas. Hence it's credibility is not assured. Therefore it would be better that the lines be removed from the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by श्वेतकेतु (talk • contribs) 06:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, please take a look at these: WP:BIASEDSOURCES and RS-NPOV. Also, make sure to sign your message by entering ~~~~ at the end of your text. WikiLinuz (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is Shoaib Daniyal involved in "Radical Islamic agendas"? It sounds more like you're using standard Hindutva terminology to discredit opponents. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're completely unfamiliar with the Indian Politics.Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the question. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva Dispute

There has been a conflict regarding whether or not Malhotra is Hindutva. Let us discuss here. Ahciwbxj (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing Hindu groups in the US have recently adopted the charge of academic elitism as a way to neutralize professors seen to be critical of their agenda. Since the spurious claims the right-wing often made in the name of Hinduism, history, etc. have seldom found any support amongst serious scholars of Sanskrit, South Asian History or the Humanities more generally, the Hindutva brigade has sought to dismiss the entire academic infrastructure as an elitist and allegedly ‘neo-colonialist’ enterprise devoted to the continued denigration of Hindus and India. Most interestingly, it is the institution of peer reviewing that has been singled out for the most pungent criticism. Rajiv Malhotra, one of the foremost strategists behind the meteoric rise of public Hindutva in the US, in a much-quoted article in 2004 dubbed the university system a ‘peer review cartel’. According to him, peer reviewing was a way of ensuring a cartel-like control over knowledge production that kept out voices such as his.
— Mukharji, Projit Bihari (2017-07-03). "Embracing academic elitism". South Asian History and Culture. 8 (3): 355–356. ISSN 1947-2498.

TrangaBellam (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be appropriate to quote him on the right wing like Hindutva. This is an unsolicited opinion which has nothing to do with Hindutva ideology which is posted here as a valid criticism. Just another Wikipedian editor (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To whom are you talking? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this discussion still going on? I find the sources cited to be of extremely poor quality. I am not sure if he fits the criteria to be called a "Hindutva idealogue" OrigamiSoft (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He outright rejects Hindutva in his book Being Different.

2607:FEA8:AA03:9600:8DD5:E5E6:FC28:A539 (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? People misrepresent themselves all the time. We go by reliably published sources. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rajiv Malhotra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking this one up. Looking forward to working with you. Matarisvan (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I am going to quickfail this nomination based on quickfail criterion 1: it is a long way from meeting the GA criteria. I will outline a selection of problems below:

  • The article excessively relies on the writings of the article subject, which cannot be considered reliable sources in this context. The words "According to Malhotra" appear thirteen (!) times. This means that there is no way of knowing if the "Criticism of Christian Yoga" section, for example, is a "main aspect of the topic", or just WP:UNDUE. 32 of the 41 citations in this section are to Malhotra's writings; it would much more preferable if it was 3 out of 41.
  • There are also occasions where there appears to be original research. The paragraph summarizing the subversion of Biblical cosmology by the principal [sic] of Rta is not verifiable in the cited text, although, considering the lack of use of page numbers, I may have missed it.
  • MOS:LEAD, part of criterion 1b), is not met. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, I would expect an article of close to 7,000 words (including notes) to have three or four paragraphs. The current two short paragraphs unsurprisingly are unable to properly summarize the article, especially as information such as the translation of the Tengyur do not appear in the body. As it stands, the lead does not adequately "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"—his books and reception are not discussed in any detail whatsoever.
  • The article's layout is very confused. All the subsections in the section titled "Infinity Foundation" have nothing to do with the foundation itself. Instead, there is an in-depth discussion of his ideals and criticism of American academia, followed by subsections for each of his books (later duplicated in the "Books" subsection). I do not think that this article meets MOS:LAYOUT as it stands.
  • The (uncaptioned) infobox image is from a now-offline website which reserved all copyright (Copyright @ All Rights Reserved at bottom). This means that the image used is definitely incorrectly tagged, and probably ineligible to be on Commons anyway.
  • Per MOS:EMBED, "embedded lists should be used only when appropriate". This article has four embedded lists, and I think only one of them (on the stages of the U-Turn theory) is necessary—the rest can be converted to prose.
    To sum up, there are considerable problems with GA criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and so I am stopping this review here. Feel free to renominate once you have fixed the problems, and ping me if you have any questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

What should be in the lead?

@Ratnahastin I think the lead was accurately added, and you are deliberately trying to declare him "right-wing Hindutva ideologue". Moreover, it explicitly mentions his hindu nationalist ideology in the 2nd para. I feel your latest edit in the article is a concerning POV push.

  • About the citation provided- The same news outlet calls him a researcher-author [1].
  • More citations to call him a "researcher-author" in lead, if needed- [2][3].
  • @Vanamonde93@Kautilya3@Garudam, Now he wants to get a protection for the page [4] just because he thinks editors are "disrupting" it, that too after only 2 edits?

PPicazHist (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content is long standing and well sourced (see body). Your accusations of POV pushing are meritless. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will post a detailed response tomorrow. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And can easily be expanded with other sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ivanvector for the undoing the edit. He is a renowned research scholar and a Physicist. Lead should always be respectful and non-contentious. Thanks again. PPicazHist (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the lead must be neutral and reliably sourced. There is no obligation to say nice things about people nor to hide negative information, but it must be cited to a reliable source. Ratnahastin says it's reliably sourced, but I didn't find the statement supported anywhere in the body, sourced or otherwise. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Hindutva" label is easily sourced (and already sourced: in contemporary usage it is synonymous with Hindu nationalism). "Right-wing", I'm not sure about, nor "idealogue". I believe "author" is the most common descriptor for his career; I haven't seen many sources calling him a scholar, given that his professional background is in IT and media. IV is obviously correct that we have no obligation to avoid negative labels in the lead, only to use those commonly applied by reliable sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
renowned research scholar - serious? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content in lead has been there for a long time. In fact the first source in the lead itself refers to him as a Hindutva ideologue in the very first sentence. I'm not sure why this was removed when many experienced editors and admins have in past also restored it whenever it was removed. In any case, him being a right wing Hindutva ideologue is a unanimous opinion among reliable sources and scholars.
  • He is often referred to as “Ayn Rand of Internet Hindutva" or " the philosopher-in-chief of Internet Hindutva." [1][2]
  • He is often described as a right-wing author or ideologue.[3][4]
  • He is also described as a Hindu nationalist.[5]
  • He has a long history of harassing scholars in the west in order to restrain the academic discourse on topics of Hinduism.[6][7][8]
  • His organisation has also been described as a Hindutva think tank[9][10].
In academic sources:
  • Truschke has described him as "a plagiarist and ideologue with no academic credentials".[11] Others have described him as a "Hindutva champion"[12] and "right wing populist" behind the rise of public Hindutva in US.[13]
Not a single reliable source calls him an academic or scholar in fact most deny that he is one, so calling him one would be disingenuous. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector@Vanamonde93 You can see how great research my friend @Ratnahastin has done. I don't have time to write such big paragraphs.
  • Please watch Rajiv Malhotra's interview, where he clearly mentions what he likes to be called. here. You can skip to 19:07.
  • I am sorry to cite a facebook video, but couldn't find a better one. Here Rajiv malhotra clearly says that he doesn't believe in left or right wing. How can he be an right wing activist then?
  • @Valereee @Seraphimblade This clearly shows how some people just want to push their POV on wiki, rather than contributing the platform in a neutral way. While those who want to contribute are blocked.
  • I myself oppose BJP in many issues, but I never put unreliable infos in lead of living persons. Much of the sources mentioned in article lead are unreliable. Dawn news? That was started by jinnah, I don't say its unreliable but obviously not unbiased. Anyways we can watch the dialogue in which living person himself tells who he is.
PPicazHist (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a lot of ideologically motivated people love to deny their ideological motivations. It is not a big deal. We rely on the description from WP:RS.
Also, read WP:TPNO and don't use this talk page for discussing your personally observed ills of Wikipedia. Capitals00 (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a lot of ideologically motivated people love to deny their ideological motivations- Is there any reliable source for this motivation of yours? PPicazHist (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Typically we don't use a BLP subject's own words to describe their political positions, especially for activists on the fringes of the political spectrum who have incentive to "soften" their positions, and anyway a video on Facebook is suspect as a reliable source, especially since AI deepfakes are everywhere and Facebook has just said they're no longer going to fact-check or remove disinformation. Normally we use statements by third-party reliable sources and attribute those opinions to their authors, or summarize a range of opinions when sources vary. See the treatment of refs and footnotes at Faith Goldy for example (just the first example I could think of). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 06:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We only follow what independent and reliable scholarly sources say about someone, not what that person says about themselves. Although he has maintained that he is not a part of Hindutva right wing, likely because open identification with RSS/VHP Hindutva line carries less charm in the western diaspora. [14] He also maintains contacts with BJP/VHP/Hindutva affiliates in India and abroad and is firmly recognised to be a part of Hindu right as my sources show. He lacks academic credentials yet he was appointed as visiting professor at the JNU, he also holds meetings with Hindutva leaders such as Modi and Yogi Adityanath.[15] - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor & Francis is an unreliable source, find better sources. PPicazHist (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ad infinitum. See WP:SEALION. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources I cited in my response are published by Taylor & Francis (which is one of the largest academic publishers and not unreliable by any metric FYI). - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with "right-wing", "Hindu nationalist" and "idealogue", but not with "Hindutva". Read the lead paragraph of Hindutva and tell me what part of it applies to Malhotra. And please avoid citing journalists. Hindutva is not a journalistic term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 has stated that in contemporary usage, Hindu nationalism is synonymous with Hindutva, also see my original comment where I have cited one non-journalistic source calling him as Hindutva champion. Although I have no issue with "Hindu nationalist" in lede, in fact that's what the article said until it was changed by @Arimaboss: without explanation. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they are synonymous then "Hindu nationalist" must be perfectly ok. There is no need to drop ill-understood buzzwords just to score points. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For that, we need to find sources that really refute him being a Hindutva ideologue, as you said "If they are synonymous then "Hindu nationalist" must be perfectly ok" same goes for Hindutva instead of Hindu nationalist. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hindutva is okay. There's barely any difference between Hindu Nationalism and Hindutva. Upd Edit (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I personally use "Hindutva" for the ideology that descends from Savarkar. That is what I learn from Chirstophe Jaffrelot, who is the top scholar in the field. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Daniyal, Shoaib (2015-07-14). "Plagiarism row: How Rajiv Malhotra became the Ayn Rand of Internet Hindutva". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2025-01-09.
  2. ^ Naik, Raqib Hameed (2021-04-02). "Hindu right-wing groups in US got $833,000 of federal COVID fund". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2025-01-09.
  3. ^ Dutta, Amrita Nayak; Sharma, Kritika (2018-11-04). "New JNU honorary prof Rajiv Malhotra's CV: Charges of plagiarism & whole lot of Hindutva". ThePrint. Retrieved 2025-01-09.
  4. ^ "Hindutva ideologue Rajiv Malhotra appointed JNU honorary visiting professor". Scroll.in. 2018-10-30. Retrieved 2025-01-09.
  5. ^ Trivedi, Divya (2016-09-28). "Intolerance unplugged". Frontline. Retrieved 2025-01-09.
  6. ^ Anderson, E.T.G. (2023). Hindu Nationalism in the Indian Diaspora: Transnational Politics and British Multiculturalism. Hurst Publishers. p. 308. ISBN 978-1-80526-089-9. Retrieved 2025-01-09. attacking a host of scholars of Hinduism, notably Sheldon Pollock, Paul Courtright, Jeffrey Kripal, and Doniger (but also many Indian academics), for their 'insulting' interpretations of Hindu texts and practices, in particular targeting the perceived 'eroticisation of Hinduism'.
  7. ^ Truschke, Audrey (2022-12-31). "Hindu Supremacists in a White World" (PDF). Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 90 (4): 805–808. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfad027. ISSN 0002-7189. Retrieved 2025-01-09.
  8. ^ "Timeline of Harassment". Hindutva Harassment Field Manual. 2005-01-31. Retrieved 2025-01-09.
  9. ^ Young, Richard Fox (2015-08-01). "Time for a "Diagnostic Test" on Rajiv Malhotra's Books". The Caravan. Retrieved 2025-01-09.
  10. ^ Pandian, M S S (2013). "Caste in Tamil Nadu: A History of Nadar Censorship". Economic and Political Weekly. 48 (3). Economic and Political Weekly: 12–14. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 23391248. Retrieved 2025-01-09. Rajiv Malhotra of the Hindu fundamentalist Infinity Foundation
  11. ^ Truschke, Audrey (2020-12-14). "Hindutva's Dangerous Rewriting of History". South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal (24/25). doi:10.4000/samaj.6636. ISSN 1960-6060. Retrieved 2025-01-09.
  12. ^ Manian, Sabita; Bullock, Brad (2021-01-02). "Indo-Caribbean diaspora, foreign policy, and iterations of Hindu identity". South Asian Diaspora. 13 (1): 81–97. doi:10.1080/19438192.2020.1773135. ISSN 1943-8192. Rajiv Malhotra, an Indo-American author and Hindutva champion,
  13. ^ Mukharji, Projit Bihari (2017-07-03). "Embracing academic elitism". South Asian History and Culture. 8 (3): 354–359. doi:10.1080/19472498.2017.1350401. ISSN 1947-2498. Rajiv Malhotra, one of the foremost strategists behind the meteoric rise of public Hindutva in the US,....right-wing populists like Rajiv Malhotra
  14. ^ Constructing Indian Christianities: culture, conversion and caste. London New York: Routledge. 2014. p. 230. ISBN 978-1-315-73420-0. For insight into the ethos and inner workings of iHinduism, see Lal (1999); on 'cyber-Hindutva', see Jaffrelot (2010: 704). Here, note may be made of how Diasporic Nationalists feel uncomfortable about being identified as Hindutvavadis (that is, as proponents of an India-as-a-Hindu-nation ideology originating in the writings of V. D. Savarkar and M. S. Golwalkar, the founding ideologues of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [RSS]). Despite the ideological affinities, there are those — Malhotra would be one — who speak of themselves, self-referentially, as 'non-Hindutva Hindus'. The apparent disaffection with the RSS in the diaspora, Jaffrelot argues, has much to do with diminished cachet (ibid.: 705): 'There was no way that business executives . . . were going to get up at dawn to salute the saffron flag reciting a Sanskrit anthem —and even less do calisthenics in khaki shorts'
  15. ^ Gandhi, Supriya (2022-12-31). "Who Speaks for Hinduism?" (PDF). Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 90 (4): 795–800. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfad024. ISSN 0002-7189. Retrieved 2025-01-10. Malhotra identified as a "non-Hindutva Hindu." ..... However, some others who rallied to Malhotra's cause were clearly aligned with the global Hindu right. ...... In the burgeoning social media sphere of the Hindu right, Malhotra is but one of several such public figures who seek a nativist reclamation of Indology harmonized with a neoliberal model of development for India.

Hostile language

I am by no means a political animal but am familiar with political theory having taken political science in my undergraduate degree. I landed on this page by clicking on a chain of links on X and looking up the background of the owner of the account that each link took me to. My honest opinion is that even though I know nothing about the subject of this Wiki page other than what it says, the write up seems hostile to him as do many pages on Wikipedia. Using hostile labels like 'ideologue' and 'right-wing' is hardly the way you are going to persuade people like me who have been completely cold to politics until last month. I have to admit that if you'd asked me a month back whom I would vote for if I had to choose one party over another (I never bothered to vote), it would have been the Democratic Party, but I have been paying more attention to the complaints of the supporters of Charlie Kirk after his assassination (I had never heard of him before that), and I do see that labels like 'ideologue' and 'left wing' are not used in a hostile manner for Democrat leaning people. Today, I was also sent a link to an announcement that there will be a grokipedia because Wikipedia is biased which is how I started clicking on one link after another. I honestly think Wikipedia should be respectful to all political ideologies if it wants to come across as neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E88D:1020:84E9:BFBA:4F8E:81C6 (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajiv_Malhotra