Talk:India

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

India, once considered to be the "golden bird" of the East, had acquired its wealth through export of spices over the centuries of trade. Once the "British Raj" took over, all the wealth got transported out of India, just like the modern Iraq at the hands of USA. After over 200 years of stay in India, when the Britishers left, India was left a devided nation, poor, with barely any infrastructure to support itself. Its main strength came from its masses, who toiled in the fields to generate revenues. Hence familes felt the greatest strength was to have a large family. Soon, country developed basic infrastructure and so called self dependence. Now, the burgeoning masses were seen as a burden on the economy. Politicians, who had freed the country, were long gone. The newer generation of politicians, were corrupt and the implementation of measures by the government, to curb the growing population were ineffective - as the money was siphoned off by the greedy politicians again and again. While some of the educated middle class popultion and the wealthy, were quick to practice "family planning", the rest of the poorer population continued to have larger families to guarantee a meal a day. After over 50 years of independence, and about three generations, the population now stands tall and wide. The political will is still lacking and the political might is growing weaker by the day!

--68.205.165.63 19:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)VSanghi

"Kuchh baat hai ki hasti mit-ti nahi hamari. Sadiyon raha hai dushman daur-e-jaman hamara."

It's good to hear so much Good and Great about our India. But, the need of the hour is not to blow our own bounet. What we need is to think what we can do for our Mother India? Think about that. Please think about that.

Removed comment wrongly attributed to Lord Macaulay. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=296771

Nothing bad?[edit]

I am an Indian and was wondering if anybody ever said anything bad about it too? Just for the balance you know?

disputable quote[edit]

  • Our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only.

I removed this as probably a misattribution — it is attributed to Mark Twain in India : A Splendour in Cultural Diversity (2004) by M. L. Ahuja, p. 1, but I have been unable to located in any citations or occurrence of earlier sources. ~ Seer 20:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced[edit]

These should be provided with sources before being moved back into the article.
  • India is probably the best country in the world, both scenic and peaceful, it truly is god's country.
  • The Portuguese, Dutch and English have been for a long time year after year, shipping home the treasures of India in their big vessels. We Germans have been all along been left to watch it. Germany would do likewise, but hers would be treasures of spiritual knowledge.
  • Yunan-o-Misr-o-Roma Sab Mit Gaye Jahan Se, Ab Tak Magar Hai Baki Naam-o-Nishan Hamara, Kuchh Baat Hai Ke Hasti Mit’ti Nahin Hamari, Sadiyon Raha Hai Dushman Daur-e-Zaman Hamara.
    • Yunani, Egyptian & Roman Civilizations have all vanquished from this world but even today we (Indian culture, in true sense) are here. There is something in this soil that helped us (Indian culture, in true sense) survive innumerable enemies.
  • With one foot grounded in time-honored traditions and the other fervently striding into the entrepreneurial e-age, India embraces diversity passionately as few other countries on earth could.
    • Lonely Planet (Travel guide book)
  • It will no longer remain to be doubted that the priests of Egypt and the sages of Greece have drawn directly from the original well of India, that it is to the banks of the Ganges and the Indus that our hearts feel drawn as by some hidden urge.
  • If there is one place on the face of earth where all the dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India.
  • It is impossible not to be astonished by India. Nowhere on Earth does humanity present itself in such a dizzying, creative burst of cultures and religions, races and tongues. Enriched by successive waves of migration and marauders from distant lands, every one of them left an indelible imprint which was absorbed into the Indian way of life. Every aspect of the country presents itself on a massive, exaggerated scale, worthy in comparison only to the superlative mountains that overshadow it. It is this variety which provides a breathtaking ensemble for experiences that is uniquely Indian. Perhaps the only thing more difficult than to be indifferent to India would be to describe or understand India completely. There are perhaps very few nations in the world with the enormous variety that India has to offer. Modern day India represents the largest democracy in the world with a seamless picture of unity in diversity unparalleled anywhere else.
  • India — The land of Vedas, the remarkable works contain not only religious ideas for a perfect life, but also facts which science has proved true. Electricity, radium, electronics, airship, all were known to the seers who founded the Vedas.

Censorship of sourced quotes by User:MonsterHunter32[edit]

Due to the continued refusal of MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to move deleted quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning, as was told to him by many users many times, I am copying them here in one place (they are all India-related), so that others interested in this topic area can comment on it in one place. So that we can have a centralized discussion of the consolidated quotes.

I have alerted about this problem already here at Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:MonsterHunter32's_massive_censorship_of_sourced_quotes_without_discussion and at Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress#User:MonsterHunter32.

He was warned many times by multiple users that per Template:Remove the following is valid and must be observed:

  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.

Censored quotes[edit]

  • At that date, the Mohammedan conqueror, Mahmoud of Ghizni, crossed India; seized on the holy city of Somnauth; and stripped of its treasures the famous temple, which had stood for centuries--the shrine of Hindoo pilgrimage, and the wonder of the Eastern world. Of all the deities worshipped in the temple, the moon-god alone escaped the rapacity of the conquering Mohammedans. Preserved by three Brahmins, the inviolate deity, bearing the Yellow Diamond in its forehead, was removed by night, and was transported to the second of the sacred cities of India--the city of Benares.
    • THE MOONSTONE, A Romance by Wilkie Collins
Being discussed at Talk:Somnath temple, MonsterHunter continues edit-warring.--Jedi3 (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries.
This quote was deleted under the poor excuse that it " Doesn't focus on india" with no talkpage discussion. This proves that MonsterHunter has not read the quote in context. Ambedkar writes about the situation in India in the book and passage from where this was quoted.--Jedi3 (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Aurangzeb cared nothing for art, destroyed its "heathen" monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the provincial governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year ( 1679-80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faiths, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of the temples which had represented or housed the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Aurangzeb converted a handful of timid Hindus to Islam, but he wrecked his dynasty- and his country. A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster, fled from his tax-gatherers, and prayed for his death. During his reign the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that. had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. The Emperor himself, in his last years, began to realize that by the very narrowness of his piety he had destroyed the heritage of his fathers.
Being discussed at Talk:Aurangzeb, MonsterHunter continues edit-warring. MonsterHunter deleted many (more than 10) quotes from this article without ANY discussion at all. --Jedi3 (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Dil-e-Yarana, Take Heart! Khuda Hai, There is God, What hope do we have in retreat, Know ye not where our victory is, Khuda Hai, Khuda Hai.
    • Aurangzeb during battle
  • Dãrãb Khãn who had been sent with a strong force to punish the Rajputs of Khandela and to demolish the great temple of the place, attacked the place on the 8th March/5th Safar, and slew the three hundred and odd men who made a bold defence, not one of them escaping alive. The temples of Khandela and Sãnula and all other temples in the neighbourhood were demolished...'On Sunday, the 25th May/24th Rabi. S., Khan Jahãn Bahãdur came from Jodhpur, after demolishing the temples and bringing with himself some cart-loads of idols, and had audience of the Emperor, who highly praised him and ordered that the idols, which were mostly jewelled, golden, silvery, bronze, copper or stone, should be cast in the yard (jilaukhãnah) of the Court and under the steps of the Jãm'a mosque, to be trodden on. They remained so for some time and at last their very names were lost'...Ruhullah Khan and Ekkatãz Khan went to demolish the great temple in front of the Rãnã's palace, which was one of the rarest buildings of the age and the chief cause of the destruction of life and property of the despised worshippers Twenty mãchãtoR Rajputs who were sitting in the temple vowed to give up their lives; first one of them came out to fight, killed some and was then himself slain, then came out another and so on, until every one of the twenty perished, after killing a large number of the imperialists including the trusted slave, Ikhlãs. The temple was found empty. The hewers broke the images.'....'On Saturday, the 24th January, 1680/2nd Muharram, the Emperor went to view lake Udaisãgar, constructed by the Rãnã, and ordered all the three temples on its banks to be demolished.'...On the 29th January/7th Muharram, Hasan 'Ali Khan brought to the Emperor twenty camel-loads of tents and other things captured from the Rãnã's palace and reported that one hundred and seventy-two other temples in the environs of Udaipur had been destroyed. The Khan received the title of Bahãdur 'Alamgirshãhi'...'Abû Turãb, who had been sent to demolish the temples of Amber, returned to Court on Tuesday, the 10th August/24th Rajab, and reported that he had pulled down sixty-six temples.
    • Maãsir-i-Ãlamgiri, translated into English by Sir Jadu-Nath Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947, pp. 107-120
  • Hamiduddin Khan Bahãdur who had gone to demolish a temple and build a mosque (in its place) in Bijapur, having excellently carried out his orders, came to Court and gained praise and the post of dãrogha of gusalkhãnah, which brought him near the Emperor's person.
    • Maãsir-i-Ãlamgiri, translated into English by Sir Jadu-Nath Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947, pp. 241
  • As his blessed nature dictated, he was characterized by perfect devotion to the rites of the Faith; he followed the teaching of the great Imãm. Abu Hanifã (God be pleased with him!), and established and enforced to the best of his power the five foundations of Islãm''Through the auspices of his hearty endeavour, the Hanafi creed (i.e., the Orthodox Sunni faith) has gained such strength and currency in the great country of Hindustan as was never seen in the times of any of the preceding sovereigns. By one stroke of the pen, the Hindu clerks (writers) were dismissed from the public employment. Large numbers of the places of worship of the infidels and great temples of these wicked people have been thrown down and desolated. Men who can see only the outside of things are filled with wonder at the successful accomplishment of such a seemingly difficult task. Arid on the sites of the temples lofty mosques have been built'.
    • Maãsir-i-Ãlamgiri, translated into English by Sir Jadu-Nath Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947, pp. 312-15
  • The Emperor learning that in the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura there was a stone railing presented by Dara Shukoh, remarked, 'In the Muslim faith it is a sin even to look at a temple, and this Dara had restored a railing in a temple. This fact is not creditable to the Muhammadans. Remove the railing.' By his order Abdun Nabi Khan (the faujdar of Mathura) removed it.'...'News came from Malwa that Wazir Khan had sent Gada Beg, a slave, with 400 troopers, to destroy all temples around Ujjain' A Rawat of the place resisted and slew Gada Beg with 121 of his men.'...'The Emperor learnt from a secret news writer of Delhi that in Jaisinghpura Bairagis used to worship idols, and that the Censor on hearing of it had gone there, arrested Sri Krishna Bairagi and taken him with 15 idols away to his house; then the Rajputs had assembled flocked to the Censor's house, wounded three footmen of the Censor and tried to seize the Censor himself; so that the latter set the Bairagi free and sent the copper idols to the local subahdar.'...'The Emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men' ordered them to demolish the temple of Pandharpur, and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the temple' It was done.'
    • Akhbãrãt, cited in Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb,Volume III, Calcutta, 1972 Impression. p. 186-189.
  • 'When the war with the Rajputs was over, Aurangzeb decided to leave for the Deccan. His march seems to have been marked with the destruction to many temples on the way. On 21 May, 1681, the superintendent of the labourers was ordered to destroy all the temples on the route.'...'On 27 September, 1681, the emperor issued orders for the destruction of the temples at Lakheri.'...'About this time, on 14 April, 1692, orders were issued to the provincial governor and the district fojdãr to demolish the temples at Rasulpur.'...'Sankar, a messenger, was sent to demolish a temple near Sheogaon. He came back after pulling it down on 20 November, 1693.'...'Bijai Singh and several other Hindus were reported to be carrying on public worship of idols in a temple in the neighbourhood of Ajmer. On 23 June, 1694, the governor of Ajmer was ordered to destroy the temple and stop the public adoration of idol worship there.'...'The temple of Wakenkhera in the fort was demolished on 2 March, 1705.'...'The newswriter of Ranthambore reported the destruction of a temple in Parganah Bhagwant Garh. Gaj Singh Gor had repaired the temple and made some additions thereto.'...'Royal orders for the destruction of temples in Malpura Toda were received and the officers were assigned for this work.'
    • Akhbãrãt, cited in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962. p. 136-139
  • By looting, the temples of the South and hunting out buried treasures, Mîr Jumla amassed a vast fortune. The huge Hindu idols of copper were brought away in large numbers to be melted and cast into cannon.....Mir Jumla made his way into Kuch Bihar by an obscure and neglected highway' In six days the Mughal army reached the capital (19th December) which had been deserted by the Rajah and his people in terror. The name of the town was changed to Alamgirnagar; the Muslim call to prayer, so long forbidden in the city, was chanted from the lofty roof of the palace, and a mosque was built by demolishing the principal temple.
    • Fathiyya-i-Ibriyya cited by Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb, quoted in Goel, S.R. Hindu Temples What Happened to them
  • The infidels demolished a mosque that was under construction and wounded the artisans. When the news reached Shãh Yasîn, he came to Banaras from Mandyawa and collecting the Muslim weavers, demolished the big temple. A Sayyid who was an artisan by profession agreed with one Abdul Rasûl to build a mosque at Banaras and accordingly the foundation was laid. Near the place there was a temple and many houses belonging to it were in the occupation of the Rajputs. The infidels decided that the construction of a mosque in the locality was not proper and that it should be razed to the ground. At night the walls of the mosque were found demolished. Next day the wall was rebuilt but it was again destroyed. This happened three or four times. At last the Sayyid hid himself in a corner. With the advent of night the infidels came to achieve their nefarious purpose. When Abdul Rasûl gave the alarm, the infidels began to fight and the Sayyid was wounded by Rajputs. In the meantime, the Musalman resident of the neighbourhood arrived at the spot and the infidels took to their heels. The wounded Muslims were taken to Shãh Yasîn who determined to vindicate the cause of Islam. When he came to the mosque, people collected from the neighbourhood. The civil officers were outwardly inclined to side with the saint, but in reality they were afraid of the royal displeasure on account of the Raja, who was a courtier of the Emperor and had built the temple (near which the mosque was under construction). Shãh Yasîn, however, took up the sword and started for Jihad. The civil officers sent him a message that such a grave step should not be taken without the Emperor's permission. Shãh Yasîn, paying no heed, sallied forth till he reached Bazar Chau Khamba through a fusillade of stones' The, doors (of temples) were forced open and the idols thrown down. The weavers and other Musalmans demolished about 500 temples. They desired to destroy the temple of Beni Madho, but as lanes were barricaded, they desisted from going further.
    • Ganj-i-Arshadî, cited in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962. p. 144-45
  • Order issued on all faujdars of thanas, civil officers (mutasaddis), agents of jagirdars, kroris, and amlas from Katak to Medinipur on the frontier of Orissa:- The imperial paymaster Asad Khan has sent a letter written by order of the Emperor, to say, that the Emperor learning from the newsletters of the province of Orissa that at the village of Tilkuti in Medinipur a temple has been (newly) built, has issued his august mandate for its destruction, and the destruction of all temples built anywhere in this province by the worthless infidels. Therefore, you are commanded with extreme urgency that immediately on the receipt of this letter you should destroy the above-mentioned temples. Every idol-house built during the last 10 or 12 years, whether with brick or clay, should be demolished without delay. Also, do not allow the crushed Hindus and despicable infidels to repair their old temples. Reports of the destruction of temples should be sent to the Court under the seal of the qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs.
    • Muraqãt-i-AbuI Hasan by Maulãna Abul Hasa, quoted in Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb,Volume III, Calcutta, 1972 Impression. p. 187
  • When the imperial army was encamping at Mathura, a holy city of the Hindus, the state of affairs with regard to temples of Mathura was brought to the notice of His Majesty. Thus, he ordered the faujdar of the city, Abdul Nabi Khan, to raze to the ground every temple and to construct big mosques (over their demolished sites).'
    • Futûhãt-i-Ãlamgîrî, translated into English by Tanseem Ahmad, Delhi, 1978. p. 82
  • 'The Emperor, within a short time, reached Udaipur and destroyed the gate of Dehbari, the palaces of Rana and the temples of Udaipur. Apart from it, the trees of his gardens were also destroyed.
    • Futûhãt-i-Ãlamgîrî, translated into English by Tanseem Ahmad, Delhi, 1978. p. 130
  • In the city of Agra there was a large temple, in which there were numerous idols, adorned and embellished with precious jewels and valuable pearls. It was the custom of the infidels to resort to this temple from far and near several times in each year to worship the idols, and a certain fee to the Government was fixed upon each man, for which he obtained admittance. As there was a large congress of pilgrims, a very considerable amount was realized from them, and paid into the royal treasury. This practice had been observed to the end of the reign of the Emperor Shãh Jahãn, and in the commencement of Aurangzeb's government; but when the latter was informed of it, he was exceedingly angry and abolished the custom. The greatest nobles of his court represented to him that a large sum was realized and paid into the public treasury, and that if it was abolished, a great reduction in the income of the state would take place. The Emperor observed, 'What you say is right, but I have considered well on the subject, and have reflected on it deeply; but if you wish to augment the revenue, there is a better plan for attaining the object by exacting the jizya. By this means idolatry will be suppressed, the Muhammadan religion and the true faith will be honoured, our proper duty will be performed, the finances of the state will be increased, and the infidels will be disgraced.' 'This was highly approved by all the nobles; and the Emperor ordered all the golden and silver idols to be broken, and the temple destroyed.
    • Kanzul-Mahfûz (Kanzu-l Mahfuz), in: Elliot and Dowson, Vol. VIII, pp. 38 -39.
  • On the capture of Golkonda, the Emperor appointed Abdur Rahim Khan as Censor of the city of Haiderabad with orders to put down infidel practices and (heretical) innovations and destroy the temples and build mosques on their sites.
    • Muntikhãbul-Lubãb, by Hãshim Alî Khãn (Khãfî Khãn), Quoted in Jadunath Sarkar, Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb, Vol. III, p. 188.
  • 'The fall and capture of Bijapur was similarly solemnized though here the destruction of temples was delayed for several years, probably till 1698.
    • Muntikhãbul-Lubãb, by Hãshim Alî Khãn (Khãfî Khãn), Cited by Sri Ram Sharma, Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962., p. 137.
  • During the Subedari of religious-minded, noble prince, vestiges of the Temple of Chintaman situated on the side of Saraspur built by Satidas jeweller, were removed under the Prince's order and a masjid was erected on its remains. It was named 'Quwwat-ul-Islam
    • Mirat-i-Ahmadî by Alî Muhammad Khãn, in Mirat-i-Ahmdi, translated into English by M.F. Lokhandwala, Baroda, 1965, P. 194
  • 'In AD 1696-97 (AH 1108) orders were issued for the destruction of the major temples at Sorath in Gujarat.'...'He stopped public worship at the Hindu temple of Dwarka.'
    • Mirat-i-Ahmadî by Alî Muhammad Khãn, in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962., p. 137-138
  • One age followed another--and still, generation after generation, the successors of the three Brahmins watched their priceless Moonstone, night and day. One age followed another until the first years of the eighteenth Christian century saw the reign of Aurungzebe, Emperor of the Moguls. At his command havoc and rapine were let loose once more among the temples of the worship of Brahmah. The shrine of the four-handed god was polluted by the slaughter of sacred animals; the images of the deities were broken in pieces; and the Moonstone was seized by an officer of rank in the army of Aurungzebe.
  • One may very well ask the purveyors of this puerile propaganda that if the record of Islam in medieval India was so bright and blameless, where is the need for this daily ritual of whitewashing it. Hindu heroes like Chandragupta Maurya, Samudragupta, Harihar, Bukka, Maharana Pratap, and Shivaji, to name only a few of the notables, have never needed any face-lift. Why does the monstrous men of [...] Aurangzeb, to name only the most notorious, pop out so soon from the thickest coat of cosmetics?
    The answer is provided by the Muslim historians of medieval India. They painted their heroes in the indelible dyes of Islamic ideology. They did not anticipate the day when Islamic imperialism in India will become only a painful memory of the past. They did not visualise that the record of Islam in India will one day be weighed on the scales of human values. Now it is too late for trying to salvage Islam in medieval India from its blood-soaked history. The orthodox Muslim historians are honest when they state that the medieval Muslim monarchs were only carrying out the commandments of Islam when they massacred, captured, enslaved, and violated Hindu men, women and children; desecrated, demolished, and destroyed Hindu places of worship; and dispossessed the Hindus of all their wealth. The Aligarh “historians” and their secularist patrons are only trying to prop up imposters in place of real and living characters who played life-size roles in history.
    • Sita Ram Goel: The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India
  • What are the facts? In Benares (Varanasi), Aurangzeb (1658-1707) did not just build an isolated mosque on a destroyed temple. He ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, and had mosques built on a number of cleared temple sites. All other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them; among them, Krishna's birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujrat, the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares, the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not in 5 figures. According to the official court chronicle, Aurangzeb "ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all Pagan teachings and practices". The chronicle sums up the destructions like this: "Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed... His majesty went to Chittor, and 63 temples were destroyed... Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground". In quite a number of cases, inscriptions on mosques and local tradition do confirm that Aurangzeb built them in forcible replacement of temples (some of these inscriptions have been quoted in Sitaram Goel: Hindu Temples, vol.2, along with a number of independent written accounts). Aurangzeb's reign was marked by never-ending unrest and rebellions, caused by his anti-Hindu policies, which included the reimposition of the jizya and other zimma rules, and indeed the demolition of temples.
    • Koenraad Elst (1992), Negationism in India. chapter 2
  • Fourteen years later, he [R.C. Majumdar] had to return to the theme and give specific instances of falsification. “It is very sad,” he observed, “that the spirit of perverting history to suit political views is no longer confined to politicians, but has definitely spread even among professional historians… It is painful to mention though impossible to ignore, the fact that there is a distinct and conscious attempt to rewrite the whole chapter of the bigotry and intolerance of the Muslim rulers towards Hindu religion. This was originally prompted by the political motive of bringing together the Hindus and Musalmans in a common fight against the British but has continued ever since. A history written under the auspices of the Indian National Congress sought to repudiate the charge that the Muslim rulers broke Hindu temples, and asserted that they were the most tolerant in matters of religion. Following in its footsteps, a noted historian has sought to exonerate Mahmud of Ghazni’s bigotry and fanaticism, and several writers in India have come forward to defend Aurangzeb against Jadunath Sarkar’s charge of religious intolerance. It is interesting to note that in the revised edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, one of them, while re-writing the article on Aurangzeb originally written by William Irvine, has expressed the view that the charge of breaking Hindu temples brought against Aurangzeb is a disputed point. Alas for poor Jadunath Sarkar, who must have turned in his grave if he were buried. For, after reading his History of Aurangzib, one would be tempted to ask, if the temple-breaking policy of Aurangzeb is a disputed point, is there a single fact in the whole recorded history of mankind which may be taken as undisputed?”
  • With the coming of Aurangzeb, the policy of sulah-i-kul (peace with all) initiated by Akbar in the later part of his reign suffered a complete reversal. Aurangzeb had started his career as a but-shikan (iconoclast) 13 years before he ascended the throne at Delhi. ... A general policy towards Hindu temples was proclaimed in April 1669. Maasir-i-Ãlamgîrî records: "On the 17th of Zil Kada 1079 (9th April 1669) it reached the ears of His Majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the province of Thatta, Multan, and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish Brahmans were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that students and learners, Muslims as well as Hindus, went there, even from long distances, led by a desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they taught. The Director of the Faith, consequently, issued orders to all governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship. On the 15th Rabiul-akhir (end September) it was reported to his religious Majesty, leader of the unitarians, that in obedience to order, the government officers had destroyed the temple of Bishnath at Benares."
    • Sita Ram Goel, The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India, ch. 7
  • The temple of Kešavadeva was destroyed in January, 1670. This was done in obedience to an imperial firmãn proclaimed by Aurangzeb on April 9, 1669. On that date, according to Ma’sîr-i-Ãlamgîrî, “The Emperor ordered the governors of all provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and strongly put down their teaching and religious practices.” Jadunath Sarkar has cited several sources regarding the subsequent destruction of temples which went on all over the country, and right up to January 1705, two years before Aurangzeb died. ... Soon after, in 1665, Aurangzeb imposed a pilgrim tax on the Hindus. In 1668, he prohibited celebration of all Hindu festivals, particularly Holi and Diwali. The Jats who rightly regarded themselves as the defenders of Hindu hounour were no longer in a mood to take it lying.
    • Arun Shourie, Sita Ram Goel: Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them? Vol. II, ch. 4
  • No new temple was allowed to be built nor any old one to be repaired, so that the total disappearance of all places of Hindu worship was to be merely a question of time. But even this delay, this slow operation of Time, was intolerable to many of the more fiery spirits of Islam, who tried to hasten the abolition of ‘infidelity’ by anticipating the destructive hand of Time and forcibly pulling down temples.
  • The evidence [...] is always an exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi. For instance, Aurangzeb’s petty donations to 2-3 Hindu temples patronized by some pet Hindu courtiers, are played up with great fanfare. But his systematic demolition of thousands of Hindu temples and defilement of countless images of Gods and Goddesses, throughout his long reign, is never mentioned. Such pitiable attempts at pitting molehills of munificence against mountains of malevolence, go against all sense of proportion in judging a whole period of Indian history.
    • Sita Ram Goel, The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India, ch. 7
  • Distinguished historian Ranbir Vohra writes in his historical survey, The Making of India, “Most Hindus recall little of Emperor Aurangzeb's brutal, savage reign except that under his general order all the schools and temples of the Hindus were to be destroyed, and that hundreds of temples, particularly the Viswanath Temple at Benares and the Vishnu Temple at Mathura, had been demolished. That the Muslim rulers had built mosques over many of the razed Hindu temples was also a well-known fact."
    • Indo–US Relations: Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Nuclear Energy, by Nirode Mohanty, p. 50, ch. 1
  • [Arun] Shourie goes on to quote from Aurangzeb’s court chronicles: “News came to Court that in accordance with the Emperor’s command his officers had demolished the temple of Vishvanath at Benares (2/9/1669)… In this month of Ramzan, the religious-minded Emperor ordered the demolition of the temple at Mathura… In a short time by the great exertions of his officers the destruction of this strong centre of infidelity was accomplished... A grand mosque was built on its site... (January 1670)”
    • Arun Shourie, quoted in K. Elst: Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple.
  • Aurangzeb was at the Udai Sagar on 24 January 1680. After enjoying the sight, Aurangzeb fulfilled his religious obligations by ordering the destruction of three temples on its bank.
    • Maharana Raj Singh and His Times by Sri Ram Sharma [3]
  • Aurangzeb's purpose in building those three mosques was the same intentionally offensive political purpose that moved the Russians to build their Orthodox cathedral in the city-centre at Warsaw. Those mosques were intended to signify that an Islamic government was reigning supreme, even over Hinduism's holiest of holy places. I must say that Aurangzeb had a veritable genius for picking out provocative sites. Aurangzeb and Philip II of Spain are a pair. They are incarnations of the gloomily fanatical vein in the Christian - Muslim - Jewish family of religions. Aurangzeb - poor wretched misguided bad man - spent a lifetime of hard labour in raising massive monuments to his own discredit. Perhaps the Poles were really kinder in destroying the Russians' self-discrediting monument in Warsaw than you have been in sparing Aurangzeb's mosques.
  • ‘It was reported to the Emperor (Aurangzeb) that in the Temple of Keshava Rai at Mathura, there was a stone railing presented by ‘Bishukoh’ (one without dignity i.e. Prince Dara, Aurangzeb’s elder brother). On hearing it, the Emperor observed, “In the religion of the Musalmans, it is improper even to look at a Temple and this Bishukoh had installed this kathra (barrier railing). Such an act is totally unbecoming of a Musalman. This railing should be removed (forthwith).” His Majesty ordered Abdun Nabi Khan to go and remove the kathra, which was in the middle of the Temple. The Khan went and removed it. After doing it he had audience. He informed that the idol of Keshava Rai was in the inner chamber. The railing presented by Dara was in front of the chamber and that, formerly, it was of wood. Inside the kathra used to stand the sevakas of the shrine (pujaris etc.) and outside it stood the people (khalq)’.
    • Umurat-i-Hazur Kishwar-Kashai, Julus (R.Yr.) 9, Rabi II 24 / 13 October 1666.
  • “Orders were issued by the Sublime Court to dismiss the Hindu Chowkinavis and to appoint in their place Musalmans, and, likewise, a way should be found for replacing the Amins of the Haft-chowkis by the Musalmans.”
    • Hindu Chowkinavis and Amins of the Haft-chowkis to be replaced by the Musalmans. Siyaha Akhbarat Darbar Mu'alla, Julus (R. Yr.) 10, Zilhijja 16/30 May 1667
  • “The Emperor ordered Jumdat-ul-Mulk to write to the Mutsaddis of all the subahs (provinces) of the empire that display of fire-works (atishbazi) is being forbidden. Also, Faulad Khan was ordered to arrange for announcement in the city by the beat of a drum that no one is to indulge in atishbazi.”
    • Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, Julus 10, Shawwal 24 / April 9th 1667.
  • "The Emperor said to Shaikh Nizam that his prayers were not having any effect. What could be the reason for this ? The Shaikh said, 'The reason is that a large number of Hindus are serving as ahlikhidmat (officials and officers) and as musahibs (courtiers) and they are ever (seen) in the Royal presence, and, as a result, the prayers do not have any effect'. The Emperor ordered that it is necessary that the Musalmans be appointed to serve in place of the Hindus."
    • Siyaha Waqai Darbar, Julus (R.Yr.) 10, Muharram 18 / 1st July 1667.
  • “The asylum of Shariat (Shariat Panah) Qazi Abul Mukaram has sent this arzi to the sublime Court: a man known to him told him that the Hindus gather in large numbers at Kalka Temple near Barahapule (near Delhi); a large crowd of the Hindus is seen here. Likewise, large crowds are seen at (the mazars) of Khwaja Muinuddin, Shah Madar and Salar Masud Ghazi. This amounts to bid‘at (heresy) and this matter deserves consideration. Whatever orders are required should be issued...Saiyid Faulad Khan was thereupon ordered (by the Emperor) to send one hundred beldars to demolish the Kalka Temple and other structures in its neighbourhood which were in the Faujdari of the Khan himself; these men were to reach there post haste, and finish the work without a halt.”
    • Siyah Waqa’i-Darbar, Regnal Year 10, Rabi I, 23 / 3 September 1667.
  • “Saiyad Faulad Khan has reported that in compliance with the orders, beldars were sent to demolish the Kalka Temple which task they have done. During the course of the demolition, a Brahmin drew out a sword, killed a bystander and then turned back and attacked the Saiyad also, inflicting three wounds. The Saiyid managed to catch hold of the Brahmin.”
    • Siyah Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, Julus 10, Rabi II, 3 / 12 September 1667.
  • “For different reasons, and also out of apprehension, people visit in large numbers (the mazars or shrines) of Shah Madar, Khwaja Muin-ud-din, Salar, Sarur Sultan and Pir Ganun (Pir Pabu?) etc. They go for ziyarat (visit to sacred tombs) and perform tawaf (circumbulation) which are bid‘at. Orders were issued to stop these practices...Also, the Hindus, and quite often the Musalmans also, flock at (the shrines of) Devi for worship and that of Pir Pabu. The Emperor ordered that this should be stopped. It was also ordered that the Hindus must not crowd at these places, and worship of Shitla wherever it is performed, should be held at a distance (from the habitation).”
    • Siyaha Waqai Darbar, Julus (R.Yr.) 10, Rabi II, 17 / 26th September 1667.
  • ‘As all the aims of the religious Emperor were directed to the spreading of the law of Islam and the overthrow of the practices of the infidels, he issued orders to the high diwani officers that from Wednesday, the 2nd April 1679 / 1st Rabi I, in obedience to the Quranic injunction, “till they pay commutation money (Jizyah) out of their hand and they be humbled”, and in agreement with the canonical tradition, Jizyah should be collected from the infidels (zimmis) of the capital and the provinces. Many of the honest scholars of the time were appointed to discharge the work (of collecting Jizyah). May God actuate him (Emperor Aurangzeb) to do that which He loves and is pleased with, and make his future life better than the present’.
    • 2nd April 1679 (Maasir-i-‘Alamgiri, p. 175, Tr. J.N. Sarkar)
  • The town was thus taken by assault, and the carnage endured for three days. The governor of the town, appointed by Dãhir, fled and the priests of the temple were massacred. Muhammad marked a place for the Musalmans to dwell in, built a mosque, and left four thousand Musalmans to garrison the place. Ambissa son of Ishãk Az Zabbî, the governor of Sindh, in the Khilafat of Mutasim billah knocked down the upper part of the minaret of the temple and converted it into a prison. At the same time he began to repair the ruined town with the stones of the minaret
    • Elliot and Dowson, Vol. I : Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 Volumes, Allahabad Reprint, 1964. p. 120-21.
  • He then crossed the Biyãs, and went towards Multãn' Muhammad destroyed the water-course; upon which the inhabitants, oppressed with thirst, surrendered at discretion. He massacred the men capable of bearing arms, but the children were taken captive, as well as the ministers of the temple, to the number of six thousand. The Muslamãns found there much gold in a chamber ten cubits long by eight broad, and there was an aperture above, through which the gold was poured into the chamber.
    • Elliot and Dowson, Vol. I : Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 Volumes, Allahabad Reprint, 1964. p. 122-123
  • He then went to Kandahãr in boats and conquered it. He destroyed the Budd there, and built in its place a mosque.
    • Elliot and Dowson, Vol. I : Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 Volumes, Allahabad Reprint, 1964.p. 127
  • Muhammad built at Nîrûn a mosque on the site of the temple of Budh, and ordered prayers to be proclaimed in the Muhammadan fashion and appointed an Imãm.
    • Elliot and Dowson, Vol. I : Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 Volumes, Allahabad Reprint, 1964. p. 158.
  • The forts of Siwistan and Sisam have been already taken. The nephew of Dahir, his warriors, and principal officers have been despatched, and the infidels converted to Islam or destroyed. Instead of idol temples, mosques and other places of worship have been built, pulpits have been erected, the Khutba is read, the call to prayers is raised, so that devotions are performed at the stated hours. The takbIr and praise to the Almighty Allah are offered every morning and evening.
    • Muhammad bin Qasim, letter to Hajjaj, his uncle and governor of Iraq. Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, Volume I, p. 164.
  • 'Muhammad took the fort [of Rawar] and stayed there for two or three days. He put six thousand fighting men, who were in the fort, to the sword, and shot some with arrows. The other dependents and servants were taken prisoners, with their wives and children... When the number of the prisoners was calculated, it was found to amount to thirty thousand persons, amongst whom thirty were the daughters of chiefs, and one of them was Rai Dahir's sister's daughter, whose name was Jaisiya. They were sent to Hajjaj. The head of Dahir and the fifth part of the prisoners were forwarded in charge of Ka'ab, son of Mharak. When the head of Dahir, the women, and the property all reached Hajjaj, he prostrated himself before Allah, offered thanksgivings and praises' Hajjaj then forwarded the head, the umbrellas, and wealth, and the prisoners to Walid the Khalifa. When the Khalifa of the time had read the letter, he praised Almighty Allah. He sold some of those daughters of the chiefs, and some he granted as rewards... It is said that after the conquest was effected and the affairs of the country were settled and the report of the conquest had reached Hajjaj, he sent a reply to the following effect. 'O my cousin! I received your life-inspiring letter. I was much pleased and overjoyed when it reached me. The events were recounted in an excellent and beautiful style, and I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are conformable to the Law. Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, and make no difference between enemy and friend. Allah says, - Give no quarter to Infidels, but cut their throats. Then know that this is the command of the great Allah'
    • Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, Volume I, p. 172-173.
  • Muhammad Kasim marched from Dhalila, and encamped on the banks of the stream of the Jalwali to the east of Brahmanabad. He sent some confidential messengers to Brahmanabad to invite its people to submission and to the Muhammadan faith, to preach to them Islam, to demand the Jizya, or poll-tax, and also to inform them that if they would not submit, they must prepare to fight'
    'They sent their messengers, and craved for themselves and their families exemption from death and captivity. Muhammad Kasim granted them protection on their faithful promises, but put the soldiers to death, and took all their followers and dependents prisoners. All the captives, up to about thirty years of age, who were able to work, he made slaves, and put a price upon them'
    'When the plunder and the prisoners of war were brought before Kasim, and enquiries were made about every captive, it was found that Ladi, the wife of Dahir, was in the fort with two daughters of his by his other wives. Veils were put on their faces, and they were delivered to a servant to keep them apart. One-fifth of all the prisoners were chosen and set aside; they were counted as amounting to twenty thousand in number, and the rest were given to the soldiers. Protection was given to the artificers, the merchants, and the common people, and those who had been seized from those classes were all liberated.6 But he (Kasim) sat on the seat of cruelty, and put all those who had fought to the sword. It is said that about six thousand fighting men were slain, but, according to some, sixteen thousand were killed, and the rest were pardoned.
    • Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, Volume I, p. 176-181.
  • 'Muhammad Kasim fixed a tax upon all the subjects, according to the laws of the Prophet. Those who embraced the Muhammadan faith were exempted from slavery, the tribute, and the poll-tax, and from those who did not change their creed a tax was exacted according to three grades. The first grade was of great men, and each of these was to pay silver, equal to forty-eight dirams in weight, the second grade twenty-four dirams, and the lowest grade twelve dirams. It was ordered that all who should become Musulmans at once should be exempted from the payment, but those who were desirous of their old persuasion must pay the tribute and poll-tax. Some showed an inclination to abide by their creed, and some having resolved upon paying tribute, held by the faith of their forefathers, but their lands and property were not taken from them'
    • Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, Volume I, p. 176-182.
  • 'The agriculturists in this part of the country were Jats, and they made their submission and were granted protection. When all these circumstances were communicated to Hajjaj[Muhammed bin Qasim's uncle], he sent an emphatic answer, ordering that those who showed fight should be destroyed, or that their sons and daughters should be taken as hostages and kept. Those who choose to submit, and in whose throats the water of sincerity flowed,9were to be treated with mercy, and their property secured to them'
    • Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, Volume I, p. 190
  • 'A mine was dug, and in two or three days the walls fell down, and the fort of Multan was taken. Six thousand warriors were put to death, and all their relations and dependents were taken as slaves. Protection was given to the merchants, artisans and the agriculturists. Muhammad Kasim said the booty ought to be sent to the treasury of the Khalifa; but as the soldiers have taken so much pains, have suffered so many hardships, have hazarded their lives, and have been so long a time employed in digging the mine and carrying on the war, and as the fort is now taken, it is proper that the booty should be divided, and their dues given to the soldiers. Then all the great and principal inhabitants of the city assembled together, and silver to the weight of sixty thousand dirams was distributed, and every horseman got a share of four hundred dirams weight.'
    • Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, Volume I, p. 205
  • Then all the great and principal inhabitants of the city assembled together, and silver to the weight of sixty thousand dirams was distributed and every horseman got a share of four hundred dirams weight. After this, Muhammad Kãsim said that some plan should be devised for realizing the money to be sent to the Khalîfa. He was pondering over this, when suddenly a Brahman came and said, 'Heathenism is now at an end, the temples are thrown down, the world has received the light of Islãm, and mosques are built instead of idol temples. I have heard from the elders of Multãn that in ancient times there was a chief in this city whose name was Jîbawîn, and who was a descendent of the Rãî of Kashmîr. He was a Brahman and a monk, he strictly followed his religion, and always occupied his time in worshipping idols. When his treasures exceeded all limits and computation, he made a reservoir on the eastern side of Multãn, which was hundred yards square. In the middle of it he built a temple fifty yards square, and he made a chamber in which he concealed forty copper jars each of which was filled with African gold dust. A treasure of three hundred and thirty mans of gold was buried there. Over it there is an idol made of red gold, and trees are planted round the reservoir.' It is related by historians, on the authority of 'Ali bin Muhammad who had heard it from Abû Muhammad Hinduî37 that Muhammad Kãsim arose and with his counsellors, guards and attendants, went to the temple. He saw there an idol made of gold, and its two eye were bright red rubies. Muhammad Kãsim ordered the idol to be taken up. Two hundred and thirty mans of gold were obtained, and forty jars filled with gold dust' This gold and the image were brought to treasury together with the gems and pearls and treasures which were obtained from the plunder of Multãn.'
    • Elliot and Dowson, Vol. I : Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 Volumes, Allahabad Reprint, 1964. pp. 205-06.
  • Jãnakî was one of the daughters of King Dãhir of Sindh. She was captured along with her sister and sent to the Khalîfa at Baghdad. When the Khalîfa invited Jãnakî to share his bed, she lied to him that she had already been violated by Muhammad bin Qãsim. Her sister supported her statement. The Khalîfa ordered that Muhammad be sewed up in raw hide and sent to his court. Muhammad was already dead when the chest containing him arrived in Baghdad. Jãnakî accused the Khalîfa of having killed one of his great generals without making proper enquiry. She said: 'The king has committed a very grievous mistake, for he ought not, on account of two slave girls, to have destroyed a person who had taken captive a hundred thousand modest women like us' and who instead of temples had erected mosques, pulpits and minarets'
    • Elliot and Dowson, Vol. I : Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 Volumes, Allahabad Reprint, 1964.
  • Muhammad Kãsim, ascertaining that large offerings were made to the idol, and wishing to add to his resources by those means, left it uninjured, but in order to show his horror of Indian superstition, he attached a piece of cow's flesh to its neck, by which he was able to gratify his avarice and malignity at the same time.
    • Elliot and Dowson, Vol. I : Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, 8 Volumes, Allahabad Reprint, 1964. pp. 470.
  • 'On the receipt of this letter, Hijaj obtained the consent of Wuleed, the son of Abdool Mullik, to invade India, for the purpose of propagating the faith and at the same time deputed a chief of the name of Budmeen, with three hundred cavalry, to join Haroon in Mikran, who was directed to reinforce the party with one thousand good soldiers more to attack Deebul. Budmeen failed in his expedition, and lost his life in the first action. Hijaj, not deterred by this defeat, resolved to follow up the enterprise by another. In consequence, in the year AH 93 (AD 711) he deputed his cousin and son-in-law, Imad-ood-Deen Mahomed Kasim, the son of Akil Shukhfy, then only seventeen years of age, with six thousand soldiers, chiefly Assyrians, with the necessary implements for taking forts, to attack Deebul'... 'On reaching this place, he made preparations to besiege it, but the approach was covered by a fortified temple, surrounded by strong wall, built of hewn stone and mortar, one hundred and twenty feet in height. After some time a bramin, belonging to the temple, being taken, and brought before Kasim, stated, that four thousand Rajpoots defended the place, in which were from two to three thousand bramins, with shorn heads, and that all his efforts would be vain; for the standard of the temple was sacred; and while it remained entire no profane foot dared to step beyond the threshold of the holy edifice. Mahomed Kasim having caused the catapults to be directed against the magic flag-staff, succeeded, on the third discharge, in striking the standard, and broke it down' Mahomed Kasim levelled the temple and its walls with the ground and circumcised the brahmins. The infidels highly resented this treatment, by invectives against him and the true faith. On which Mahomed Kasim caused every brahmin, from the age of seventeen and upwards, to be put to death; the young women and children of both sexes were retained in bondage and the old women being released, were permitted to go whithersoever they chose.'.... On reaching Mooltan, Mahomed Kasim also subdued that province; and himself occupying the city, he erected mosques on the site of the Hindoo temples.'
    • Tãrîkh-i-Firishta, translated into English by John Briggs under the title History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India, 4 Volumes, New Delhi Reprint, 1981. p. 234-238
  • When Muhammad bin Qasim mounted his attack on Debal in 712, all males of the age of seventeen and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved.
    • Lal, K. S. (1994). Muslim slave system in medieval India. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
  • From the seventh century onwards and with a peak during Muhammad al-Qasim's campaigns in 712-713 a considerable number of Jats [Hindus] was captured as prisoners of war and deported to Iraq and elsewhere as slaves.
    • Andre Wink, Al Hind, Vol. I, p. 161
  • Muhammad Kãsim then entered and all the town people came to the temple of Nobhãr, and prostrated themselves before an idol. Muhammad Kãsim enquired: 'Whose house is this, in which all the people high and low are respectfully kneeling and bowing down.' They replied: 'This is an idol-house called Nobhãr.' Then, by Muhammad Kãsim's order, the temple was opened. Entering it with his officers he saw an equestrian statue. The body of the idol was made of marble or alabaster, and it had on its arms golden bracelets, set with jewels and rubies. Muhammad Kãsim stretched his hand and took off a bracelet from one of the idol's arms. Then he asked the keeper of the Budh temple Nobhãr: 'Is this your idol?' 'Yes,' he replied, 'but it had two bracelets on, and one is missing.' 'Well' said Muhammad Kãsim, 'cannot your god know who has taken away his bracelet?' The keeper bent his head down. Muhammad Kãsim laughed and returned the bracelet to him, and he fixed it again on the idol's arm.'
    • The Chachnamah, translated into English by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979, pp. 179-80.
  • Swami Vivekananda's close associate Sister Nivedita testifies that Swamiji was a great devotee of the Buddha: 'Again and again he would return upon the note of perfect rationality in his hero. Buddha was to him not only the greatest of Aryans but also 'the one absolutely sane man' that the world had ever seen. How he had refused worship! (...) How vast had been the freedom and humility of the Blessed One! (...) He alone was able to free religion entirely from the argument of the supernatural, and yet make it as binding in its force, and as living in its appeal, as it had ever been." Sister Nivedita also relates that Swamiji's first act after taking Sannyas was to "hurry to Bodh Gaya, and sit under the great tree"; and that his last journey, too, had taken him to Bodh Gaya.
    • Sister Nivedita, quoted from Elst, Koenraad (2002). Who is a Hindu?: Hindu revivalist views of Animism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other offshoots of Hinduism. ISBN 978-8185990743, quoting Sister Nivedita: The Master as I Saw Him, p. 210-215.
  • Negationism means the denial of historical crimes against humanity. It is not a reinterpretation of known facts, but the denial of known facts. The term negationism has gained currency as the name of a movement to deny a specific crime against humanity, the Nazi genocide on the Jews in 1941–45, also known as the holocaust (Greek: complete burning) or the Shoah (Hebrew: disaster). Negationism is mostly identified with the effort at re-writing history in such a way that the fact of the Holocaust is omitted.
  • Hindus suffered such attempted extermination in East Bengal in 1971, when the Pakistani Army killed 1 to 3 million people, with Hindus as their most wanted target. This fact is strictly ignored in most writing about Hindu-Muslim relations, in spite (or rather because) of its serious implication that even the lowest estimate of the Hindu death toll in 1971 makes Hindus by far the most numerous victims of Hindu-Muslim violence in the post-colonial period. It is significant that no serious count or religion-wise breakdown of the death toll has been attempted: the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi ruling classes all agree that this would feed Hindu grievances against Muslims.... Even apart from the 1971 genocide, "ordinary" pogroms in East Pakistan in 1950 alone killed more Hindus than the total number of riot victims in India since 1948.
    • Koenraad Elst, "Was There an Islamic "Genocide" of Hindus?" [4]
  • The holocaust in Noakhali in the same year (1946) was likewise intended as a full-fledged jihãd. The call in this case was pronounced by Gholam Sarwar, a Muslim M.L.A. from those parts. Gholam Sarwar’s call was not documented, but the report submitted by Judge Simpson clearly refers to “large-scale conversion of Hindus to Islam by application of force in village after village. In many instances, upon the refusal of the menfolk to embrace Islam, their women were kept confined and converted under duress.” All these of course were characteristic of a true jihãd. This was not all. As in Calcutta, the Noakhali riots were characterised by the dishonouring of thousands of Hindu women. There were clear indications that these unfortunate women were looked upon as the mujãhids’ lawful plunder (ghanîmah). Baboo Rajendralal Roy, the President of Noakhali Bar Association, attempted to put up on his own some resistance to this jihãd. The outcome of this resistance has been described by a contemporary writer: “Rajenbaboo’s head was presented to Gholam Sarwar on a platter, and two of his lieutenants received as guerdon both of his young daughters (in their harem).”
    • Quoted in Majumadāra, S. (2001). Jihād: The Islamic doctrine of permanent war. ch. 1
  • Shortly after the worst of all riots between Muslims and Hindus, when the Mohammedans of Moplahs butchered hundreds of unarmed Hindus and offered their prepuces as a convenant to Allah, these same Moplahs were stricken with famine; whereupon Gandhi collected funds for them from all India, and (with no regard for the best precedents in matters of charity) forwarded every anna, without deduction for "overhead," to the starving enemy.


  • Arrian mentions with admiration that every Indian is free. With them, as with the Lacedemonians, he says, no native can be a slave; but unlike the Lacedemonians, they keep no other people in servitude.
    • The History of India, by Mountstuart Elphinstone (Ephinstone's India p. 239)
  • “The Mlechchha (asura) stone breakers climbed up the shikhar of the Temple and began to rain blows on the stone idols on all three sides by their hammers, the stone pieces falling all around. They loosened every joint of the Temple building, and then began to break the different layers (thara) and the sculptured elephants and horses carved on them by incessant blows of their hammers. Then, amidst loud and vulgar clamour, they began to apply force from both the sides to uproot the massive idol by means of wooden beams and iron crowbars”
    • (Kanhadade Prabandha, Canto I, vss. 94-96).

User:Kalki this is very unfair. I'm discussing with him at Talk:Aurangzeb. There is no point indragging this on an article of India where we don't even have any issue. He can make his "EXPOSITION" at the relevant pages. It is clear Jedi3 is trying to drum up support after he repeatedly failed to prove in any way his quotes are memorable and keeps making false bad faith claims. It is clear that his additions were only inserted based on whatever he came across that agrees with his views. Regardless, he should dispute it an appropriate forum. What's the point of having talk pages of articles? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

As I have indicated on my talk page:
 : The disputes which have existed between you two have spanned several pages — I do not object to an attempt to consolidate some aspects of them upon one talk page of an article upon one of the more general subjects upon which the two of you regularly dispute. BOTH of you have very serious issues, in terms of attitudes, and dispositions, from my perspectives, but I have refrained from indicating what many of these are. I don't presently have time to deal extensively with them, but I might attempt to provide some of my own perspectives in the next week or so. ~ Kalki·· 23:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Kalki This is an article about India. The pages we have had isues with, the appropiate channel of discussion is there. Please remove this now. There is no reason why he wants a discussion at an unrelated article, when I'm discussing at Talk:Aurangzeb. I have already said let's discuss all the quotes one by one. We would move to other articles as well. Arguing on an unrealted article over the same quotes is pointless. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


As I very clearly stated, this is a centralized discussion to consolidate all the matter on one discussion page since they are ALL India-related I have put this centralized discussion here. Since they are all India-related, other editors in this topic area can find this discussion and also comment here.

Blanking of talkpage discussions is the worst kind of vandalism and you did this not only here but you also deleted my talkpage comments elsewhere, just recently you deleted my talkpage comments at the talkpages of @Jeffq: and @Illegitimate Barrister:.

Another user (not Kalki) has warned MonsterHunter32 already that "if you keep this [reverting] up you will be blocked)" - but MonsterHunter ignored the warning again and reverted again, as usual.

This discussion would not be necessary if you had followed what was asked to you by multiple users many times:

  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove.

Now you are again doing deliberate misrepresenations when you claim you have discussed the quotes. You have almost never yourself moved quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning as was asked dozens of time by mulitple users.

What I ask as a minimal first step from you is that you move all your deleted quotes to the article talkpages with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

This is a minimal first step that is required to enable the further discussion of the removed quotes, and that you have refused to do despite being asked so many times by multiple users. Until you do that, what you say are just poor excuses. --Jedi3 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a better "first step". Let's continue discussion one by one at Talk:Aurangzeb instead of you repearedly running off, sonetimes for days from discussion like at Talk:Somnath temple. Or instead of complaining on unrelated pages and to other users, you talk on the page where the actual issue is. Instead of running away again. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour and censorship by Jedi3[edit]

User:Kalki has baselessly restored this article despite this not being an article of other pages, but simply of India. Regardless, as I won't want to start an edit-war with an administrator, I can do nothing. Even if Jedi3's complaint was sheer vanadalism. He abruptly stops discussion at Talk:Aurangzeb just like Talk:Somnath temple in past. Then he comes back aftet days to start it again by repeating the same claims again and again.

Instead of discussing at the relevant page when he failed to prove his claims, he started complaining about me here, despite this not being the right place. It is humanely impossible to discuss everything at once all his disruptive edits. Therefore, I edit other articles so in future issues can be raised by us if we have them. But it will be much better if one quote as discussed at one time. Especially seeing that this person has edit-warred over one quote at Somnath temple including on 23 March.

The user User:Jedi3 keeps falsely blaming me of censorship and keeps edit-warring. He is only engaged in POV-pushing and adding statements just so they agree with his view. He doesn't care if his claims are made up like he did at Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source. He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that wasn't about the topic.

Or making up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.

He has also made some utterly false claims of "blanking", even though my removal of his quotes didn't involve more than 1 or 2 quotes and removed only a small part of the article. Some of his utterly false claims of "blanking" are here, here and here.

He falsely keeps saying I'm censoring him when all I've done is remove those quotes which aren't notable in any manner. Not those which are notable and i've preserved many of the quotes he has added. also removed the subsection of my complaint here. He himself censors me here and here in the past.

I've warned him several times including here, here and here. He doesn't listen and has removed my comments several times from his talk page.

Not to mention this person has also insulted me by terming me annoying after another user called me so, besides also calling me a vandal, when he himself can be indicted for edit-warring and vandalism. please block this user. I've been trying to cooperate with him, but it is clear he only wants his ideology imposed here. Their is no bar on any person of any ideology, even though Wikiquote is about neutrality but he doesn't care about anything and is being unprofessional.  and it is clear he doesn't care what he does to get his edits here at all costs.

Right after his block expired, Jedi3 is back at edit-warring before even waiting for a discussion and made 3 reverts at 3 articles. See his recent reverts, here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion. He proceeded to make additional subtractions and additions at Aurangzeb, even though a revert is a revert whether partial or complete. He is trying to fool others. And just after his block expired, he has started edit-warring again and made three reverts. I would first like to check all his quotes and then discuss them one by one.

I am discussing even right now all quotes one by one who Jedi3 says must not be removed, has is not cooperating. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits. I have already complained him at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship. I ask you comment there and take action against him for his disruptive edits.

Even at Quran on Christianity, he inserts a quote in a section about "Christianity on Islam". This section shouldn't even be there. Regardless, Jedi3 makes an addition that is not about Christianity or even Christian authorities commenting on Islam.

At Alauddin Khalji, I removed his quotes which weren't actually talk about the ruler Alauddin Khalji.

It is clear this person only made his edits to push his POV and now when questioned over notability or genuiness, he keeps making false claims of them being notable or eloquent, poignant or pithy or witty even though the quotes don't even fall within the dictionary definition. I ask he be advised and warned against his disruptive behaviour. If he still continues, he is inviting a block from admins. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to most of this already elsewhere. See here Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jedi3's_disruptive_behaviour,_false_claims_and_censorship --Jedi3 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
He hasn't admitted to many of his disruptive actions adding non-genuine or unrelated quotes not about the topic or his false claims at the noticeboard. Even when caught he tries to justify it. See Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress#User:MonsterHunter32. Also right after his block expired, he restatted edit-warring. I am already talking with him. See Talk:Aurangzeb#Removed non-notable quotes. Also do note that some of these quotes were discussed and are being or will be discussed, but he offers no genuine explanation for them, just made-up claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Then please add full your full reasoning for each deleted quote at Talk:Aurangzeb. There were more than 10 deleted quotes in that article alone, you have at most commented on the one quote (from Will Durant) where I started the discussion. --Jedi3 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I also recently added new quotes to the Aurangzeb article which you also deleted without moving to the talkpage when you were again edit warring in that article despite that the article was marked as 'inuse'.--Jedi3 (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
How many times I say quotes have basically similar reason - Non-notable. Why not just discuss it one by one? Am I crazy that I will mention and discuss everything at once? You picked Will Durant's quote, we talked about it. Problem is, you keep making false claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
As for your "new quotes", you actually tried to make a sly attempt at edit-warring: [5]. Don't edit-war. Partial revert is still a revert. Add your quotes if they're notable. But I will come to check them. And don't revert again. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary table[edit]

As per User:Peter1cs suggestion, I have included the table below, which is work in progress. There are so many quotes, and each quote is different, but I am starting with the two quotes which have been discussed the most.

These two quotes have been discussed a long time, but MonsterHunter32 as a rule refuses to make the slightest concession that the quotes might be notable for other people than him. Ultimately, I agree with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard: "If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him" (that other editor should either be a Wikiquote admin or an editor with more than one year of experience at Wikiquote.) --Jedi3 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please fill in the table below:

Quotation, editorial principle or principle of editorial conduct Jedi3's position MonsterHunter32's position Comments from other editors to assist dispute resolution
* At that date, the Mohammedan conqueror, Mahmoud of Ghizni, crossed India; seized on the holy city of Somnauth; and stripped of its treasures the famous temple, which had stood for centuries--the shrine of Hindoo pilgrimage, and the wonder of the Eastern world. Of all the deities worshipped in the temple, the moon-god alone escaped the rapacity of the conquering Mohammedans. Preserved by three Brahmins, the inviolate deity, bearing the Yellow Diamond in its forehead, was removed by night, and was transported to the second of the sacred cities of India--the city of Benares. The quote is written in eloquent 19th century style English. It describes Somnath as "the wonder of the Eastern world" and implicitly as one of the two most sacred cities of India. (An influential English novel describing an "exotic" place (for English people) like Somnath in vivid detail and making it an important part of the novel's plot is by itself notable.). Apart from all this, it comes from an influential writer/novel. And there are thousands of similar quotes on other wikiquote pages, so the only reason to remove it seems to be because the creator of the page is disliked. Quote meets at least one of the criteria: It is witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, memorable, novel, original, or poignant. Issue 1 Issue 1
*Aurangzeb cared nothing for art, destroyed its "heathen" monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the provincial governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year ( 1679-80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faiths, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of the temples which had represented or housed the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Aurangzeb converted a handful of timid Hindus to Islam, but he wrecked his dynasty- and his country. A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster, fled from his tax-gatherers, and prayed for his death. During his reign the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. The Emperor himself, in his last years, began to realize that by the very narrowness of his piety he had destroyed the heritage of his fathers. The quote is written in very eloquent English, which is not surprising since it comes from Will Durant, a very gifted writer. Apart from this, it comes from an influential writer/book, who is also quoted in many other wikiquote articles, and there are thousands of similar quotes on other wikiquote pages, so the only reason to remove it seems to be "because the creator of the page is disliked" (as Kalki said in another discussion involving MonsterHunter32). (It is even quoted in the wikipedia article on Aurangzeb). Quote meets at least one of the criteria: It is witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, memorable, novel, original, or poignant. Issue 2 Issue 2

Here's the problem: You added the quotes just for POV-pushing and cared little for whether they were memorable and notable. What vivid detail? Your quote about Somnath is just one small statatement and it's not like he has seen it. Not to mention it's barely noted by other sources. Especially the actual quote is about the Moonstone diamond. "Of all the deities worshipped in the temple, the moon-god alone escaped the rapacity of the conquering Mohammedans. Preserved by three Brahmins, the inviolate deity, bearing the Yellow Diamond in its forehead, was removed by night, and was transported to the second of the sacred cities of India--the city of Benares."

The second quote, by Will Durant, is not much quoted or noted. Even many of the few websites that note it simply do not because of the quote's relevance, but to further their agenda against Aurangzeb. This defies the logic of the quote itself being notable, and there seems little to no notability or relevance. And concerning books, besides one or two books including the primary source itself.


The talk page discussion is open at Talk:Somnath temple and Talk:Aurangzeb. Why not discuss where he had the issues?

Also here's the definition of what you eloquent, poignant, witty etc which you falsely keep claiming your quotes are -

Eloquent - "fluent or persuasive in speaking or writing", poignant - "Evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret." Witty - "showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor."

Why don't you stop lying first? Not that there's nothing about you simply calling it eloquent, poignant or witty being a critieria for notability. You keep on claiming them to be various things even if they're not. That is not the way.

Is the creator of the page "disliked" by me? I don't know about the creator but I do dislike Jedi3's disruptive edits and his constant lying. And User:Peter1c is not an admin. What's the problem in discussing it one by one? You don't even stop edit-warring over one quote and you want to discuss everything at once. Instead you are repeating the same thing over again at a completely unrelated article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made this summary table here where we have a centralized discussion of the consolidated India-related deleted quotes based on the suggestion of Peter. Please fill it in, or should I fill it in for you? Your criteria so far are not criteria from the policy or from the guideline, they are your personal interpretation of what a quote should be, interpreted ad libitum by you.
These two quotes we have discussed now for long enough, now outside views from others are needed. Please put the summary of your views in the table so that others can understand your view. --Jedi3 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
What is the problem in a "centralized discussion" on the page where the quotes were removed? You are doing nothing besides repeating the same old behaviour.
The reasons are clearly there above. The table was just a suggestion by another user. I will discuss all the quotes one by one. As for personal interpretations, I am not making false claims of notability, eloquence, poignant, witty, pithy etc.
All my notability critieria is from the guidelines and policies. Not making claims and describing as something that are not even near to what they actually mean.
Instead of dilly-dallying, please resume the discussion at Talk:Aurangzeb where you abruptly stopped it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not abrutptely stop any discussion. You have failed to provide your reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage despite being told many times by many users. And in most cases you did not even move the censored quotes to the talkpage.
  • The censored quotes span multiple India-related pages, and since you continue to refuse to even move them to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning, despite being told so by many users many times as in the the following rule:
All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.
we need to start discussing, with other editors involved, who are also interested in this topic area, in one centralized page.
  • As long as you refuse to even move the censored quotes to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning, which was asked by many people many times, you are just giving poor excuses to avoid open discussion where other editors are also involved.--Jedi3 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Jedi3 has stopped discussion at Talk:Aurangzeb just like Talk:Somnath temple for a long time. And then he baselessly accuses of non-cooperation and censorship even though I have let many of his quotes which are notable stay.
I have not refused any discussions. If you want to move quotes you can move them. Template:Remove never claims to be a policy or guideline. That is the same thing you said about Wikiquote:Wikiquote when I told you to follow it. Remember? Don't like your own pill?
This talk page is about the article of India where its quotes should be discussed, not of other articles. Try clicking at "Page" and you will find it. Why don't you discuss it at the place where the quotes were removed? STOP REFUSING DISCUSSION AND RESUME DISCUSSION AT THE RELEVANT PAGE. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


  • I have already replied to most of this elsewhere. Why are you avoiding to discuss the topic which is your censorship, by bringing in irrelevant content disputes that I mostly replied already to elsewhere? 95% of your text is completely unrelated to the censorship issue, and it concerns only 1% of the quotes. But despite that I replied already you are repeating the same stuff over and over again. About Muhammed bin Qasim, the place to discuss this is the article talkpage (but since you refuse to move the quotes to the talkpage for discussion...) I have never before even heard from you about the issue at Muhammad bin Qasim. I don't know if what you claim is true but I will look into it as soon as you move the quote to the talkpage of Muhammad bin Qasim with your reasoning. But since you refuse to do this.... Now you are telling me that you explained it in the edit summary. You used 3 words in your edit summary, and I and other users expect to see your full reasoning on the talkpage as told many times by many users. I will not look for edit summaries, I will look for talkpage discussions. And besides, your 2 or 3 word edit summaries are extremely inadequate for giving your full reasoning, especially since you deleted in some articles over 15 quotes at once! Elsewhere you are complaining about edits from you that I didn't challenge for various reasons, but with these points you are simply trying to avoid discussing the topic here, which is your unexplained censorship of sourced quotes. These are all content disputes, which should be discussed on the talkpage after you moved the quote there with your reasoning (which you never do). I have also not reverted all of your removals, in some cases I have kept your changes, or I have at least made the quotes shorter (it is you who always refuse to make the slightest concession). But this is just 5 percent of the quotes. The rest is just undiscussed blanking of articles. When you claim I am censoring you I was just restoring the previous version of the article. In most cases, I took the trouble to add your other changes back to the article, but when you were censoring so many articles at once, I couldn't be expected to do this every time. The rest of your comment is just poor excuses and deliberate misrepresentations. I was not edit warring and I was discussing all of my edits on the discussion page, unlike you.

This discussion would not be necessary if you had followed what was asked to you by multiple users many times:

  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove.

Now you are again doing deliberate misrepresenations when you claim you have discussed the quotes. You have almost never yourself moved quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning as was asked dozens of time by mulitple users.

What I ask as a minimal first step from you is that you move all your deleted quotes to the article talkpages with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

This is a minimal first step that is required to enable the further discussion of the removed quotes, and that you have refused to do despite being asked so many times by multiple users. Until you do that, what you say are just poor excuses. I did not abrutptely stop any discussion. You have failed to provide your reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage despite being told many times by many users. And in most cases you did not even move the censored quotes to the talkpage.

  • All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.
  • As long as you refuse to even move the censored quotes to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning, which was asked by many people many times, you are just giving poor excuses to avoid open discussion where other editors are also involved. --Jedi3 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Here you see an overview with the current status. --Jedi3 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Censorship of sourced quotes by User:MonsterHunter32 (Part 2)[edit]

Due to the continued refusal of MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to move deleted quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning, as was told to him by many users many times, I am copying them here in one place (they are all India-related), so that others interested in this topic area can comment on it in one place. So that we can have a centralized discussion of the consolidated quotes.

I have alerted about this problem already at Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard and at Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress and other places.

He was warned many times by multiple users that per Template:Remove the following is valid and must be observed:

  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.


This is a centralized discussion to consolidate all the matter on one discussion page since they are ALL India-related I have put this centralized discussion here. Since they are all India-related, other editors in this topic area can find this discussion and also comment here.

Jedi3's masive disprutive editing[edit]

Jedi3 has intentionally overloaded this talk page and I cant even figure pout where to respond. But talking about his disruptive actions and the true reason why his quotes are removed will be reason enough.

Here you can see Jedi3's history of disruptive edit-warring in the past. While he keeps claiming censorship, he deliberately omits I've left many of his quotes untouched as well. This table I tagged earlier, but can come in handy. Some of its content is ouitdated. Theis differfence bvetween his comments and abruptly stopping discussion at It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result.

Also I've given reason for all removals in the edit summary. Also Jedi3 keeps talking about Template:Remove]. but here is actually what it says: "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning."

Regardless of it not mandating every time, I still tried to discussed with him despite not being mandatory every time. But he even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.


Article Number of non-notable quotes removed Jedi3 stopped edit-warring? Last edit-warring revert? Jedi3's disruption allowed MonsterHunter32 to move quotes to talk? Template:Remove requires moving? Satisfactory reason given? Jedi3 completed discussion on one quote anywhere?
Aurangzeb No. Still edit-warring as of 29 march. Apart from now, he never discussed at Talk: Aurangzeb for 6 days Moved. The new 10 quotes he claims I "censored", were only removed due to his edit-warring. I've already said he could restore them if they are notable. Another quote he claims I removed is still there. NOT ALWAYS. YES. NO
Somnath temple No. Still edit-warring: [16]. 24 days of difference between subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple One moved. The other not, as I was too busy arguing on Talk:Aurangzeb with Jedi3. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Other given too in edit-summary. NO
Talk:Swami Vivekananda No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Historical negationism No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Slavery in India No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [17], [18], [19] NO
Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Second one as already said is not about Qasim especially. NO
Malabar rebellion No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit-summary: [33] NO

What "cooperation" and censorship this edit-warring user is talking about? He himself doesn't care to cooperate and "censors" and berates when someone takes action against his disruptive edits. He is the most disruptive person I've ever comer across. The list above isn't complete with many other of his acts. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The many disruptive acts of Jedi3[edit]

User:Jedi3 keeps on falsely claiming I am "censoring him" despite me leaving intact many of his notable quotes no matter what they are. I've already explained to him that I won't remove any notable quotes. He must stop with his false bad-faith accusations

Jedi3 has been constantly edit-warring despite being warned by admins and told plainly some of his quotes aren't memorable and seem to be only meant for POV-pushing. While criticising me, Kalki criticised Jedi3 as well tating the biases are leading to "lapses of both logic and fairness".

Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as Talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeos calling them.

Also persistent history of Jedi3's edit-warring from the history of these articles: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41].

Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [42], [43], [44], [45], [46].

In some of these cases there were only one quote or the quotes were not as Jedi3 had added them. Despite pointing out so, he doesn't accept it.

He has edit-warred even after being warned and blocked in the past. Right after UDScott warned him, he still kept edit-warring at multiple articles: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52].

Jedi3 was blocked by UDScott for a week. But he resumed edit-warring: [53], [54], [55].

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [56], [57], [58]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [59], [60]

His vandalism has caused a lot of disruotion especially as it prevents me from adding quotes and making useful contribution. :Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: [61], [62], [63] and [64]. Also at the same time, Jedi3 kept edit-warring, sapping most of my time in dealing with his constant edit-warring. I told him not to edit-war while calling for cooperation. He didn't listen. See [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. Also same thing has happened at Noakhali riots. He kept edit-warring over one non-notable quote that i removed and in the process also kept removing the notable quotes I added. these are my additions: [73], [74] and [75]. I went away for some time as I can't keep editing forever. Then Jedi3 tried to edit-war here as well, impacting my quotes in the process as well.: [76] and [77]. This despite his removed quote only being one in number.

Also Jedi3 keeps claiming Template:Remove: "Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning."

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [78]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [79], [80]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result. He even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.

Please block this disruptive edit-warring vandal immediately. If you find the time please also comment not just on Babur, but also on Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Talk:Sikandar Butshikan. As it Jedi3 who refuses to accept responsibility for wrongdoings on these articles and still refers to them as "content dispute" despite being disproved with original sources: [81], [82]. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments about Jedi3[edit]

Jedi3 (again) selectively omits his own criticism This is what other editors have said about Jedi3:

  • Second, I also agree that many of the disputed quotes are not very memorable and might be pushing a POV. Therefore, I believe that both users are at fault in this disagreement - UDScott
  • Please stop the ongoing edit-warring you and another user are currently engaged in. I have no idea who is correct in this dispute that involves several pages. - UDScott
  • I have no doubt that you both have your rather intense and prominent biases for and against various views, attitudes and assertions, and I perceive that there are lapses of both logic and fairness in both of your inclinations. - Kalki
  • * What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.
He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them.
  • Even though another user removed his quote saying the article is about Ambedkar, not Elst, though he presumably made a grammar mistake. The reason used Jedi3 to revert? Falsely call the user a vandal.

Wikiquote certainly isn't a place for disruptors like Jedi3 who make false claims. He should be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  1. Reference is to Gruenendahl 2012
  2. H.W. Nevison, The New Spirit in India, London, 1908, p. 192 and 193. Sita Ram Goel: Muslim Separatism - Causes and Consequences.