Talk:Hindu American Foundation

Lead

I would like to know the reasons for this revert. The source I added verifies that it is a Hindu nationalist organisation.[1] Scholarly sources that call it Hindu nationalist include: [2][3][4] To suggest that it is a mere "Hindu" group is misleading.

I also disagree with the removal of the sentence "areas of activism include promotion of the Bharatiya Janata Party in the United States". We have whole section Hindu American Foundation#Visa for Narendra Modi and the Al-Jazeera says "HAF lobbies to deflect any criticism of Modi government’s policies".[5] The current sentence "areas of activism include protecting Hindu rights in the United States" cannot be verified and looks promotional. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What does "Hindu nationalism" even mean in the context of the US? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

They are promoters of Hindutva ideology and are known for advocating the interests of Hindutva forces. That's why they are called Hindu nationalists. Just like Rajiv Malhotra, an American citizen, is also called Hindu nationalist. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"Hindu nationalism" means arguing for a "Hindu nation" in India. That concept doesn't make sense in the US where the Hindus are a small minority. We say that they have links to Hindu nationalist organisations (in India as well as the subsidiaries in the US). Other than that, they might subscribe to some part of the Hindu nationalist ideology, which has to be covered on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to characterise them with a blanket descrption of that kind. You need to read some solid scholarly analyses instead of the glib media stories. Here is one:

• Long, Jeffrey D. (2023), "Hindutva, Hindu Organizations, and the Hindu Diaspora", in Knut A. Jacobsen (ed.), Hindu Diasporas, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198867692

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources I cited are scholarly enough for that. You shouldn't be deciding who is a Hindu nationalist because that would be WP:OR. Wikipedia article of Narendra Modi described him as an Hindu nationalist yet he never demanded Hindu nation. The source you have cited itself carefully attributes the claims of it being a representative of Hindus and seeking Hindu rights to the group itself ("its mission statement", "presents itself as being") rather than mentioning it as a fact like this article is wrongly doing. Also the source you've cited states that this organisation has filed defamation cases against persons and organisations that have described it as such in order to shed off that label. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This WP:WIKILAWYERING won't change the fact that your own source you've cited states that this group has filed defamation cases against those that have described it as such in order to shed off that label. You need to address that. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ratnahastin is quite correct: it is the scholarly description that matters. Besides which, someone who supports Hindu nationalism is presumably a Hindu nationalist; why does it matter where they live? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ratnahastin hasn't cited any scholarly sources. He doesn't even seem to be aware of what the term means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand that you are only making your own case weaker by making these misleading claims? I have cited 3 different scholarly sources right above. Your own source mentions: 'Nevertheless, popular media sources often label HAF a 'right wing' or 'Hindu nationalist' organization." You need to address that instead of falsifying me. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that you copy those citations here so that we can discuss them. I don't need to address the problems with the "popular media sources", which Wikipedia is not. What matters to Wikipedia is the earlier sentence: The reality of HAF is clearly a complex one, not reducible to a single factor or ideological orientation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You cannot rely on that single sentence for conclusion. It notes in the next paragraph that what mainstream media says about this organisation.

The sources I cited above describe this organisation as "Hindu nationalist forces" "[6], "draw varied levels of inspiration from the Hindu nationalist ideology"[7], "Hindu nationalist groups in the United States",[8] "Hindu nationalist groups".[9] Ratnahastin (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• I do not like the reliance on Long. The first and foremost reason is that he is a shabby scholar; compare his narrative about HAF's stance on casteism with Prema Kurien's detailed analysis for an instructive example. Furthermore, he has a conflict-of-interest. In 2006, he had submitted multiple affidavits for HAF during the California textbooks controversy — arguing in favor of their proposed whitewashing of Indian history — and in 2016, he did the same, leading the charge. Predictably, he has been awarded with their Dharma Seva Award for his "ongoing efforts to promote more accurate and culturally sensitive portrayals of Indic traditions in the American educational system". Besides, he has also been a regular speaker at HAF events and has foreworded their reports. Further, he has signed petitions started by HAF, arguing that the hullabulloo about decline of academic freedom in India under Modi's regime is a cock and bull story, that Narendra Modi has no prejudice against Muslims, and he may not be critiqued because of the mass-mandate that elected him! Long can have his views but it goes without saying that these views are manifestly fringe.
  Anyway, I do not think HAF has active links with RSS — notwithstanding ideological overlaps — and a news article is utterly insufficient to cite such a strong claim in the lead. However, given HAF's recent gamut of activity — which includes their director, Shukla, defending the demolition of Babri Masjid (I made a post at the article t/p, a year ago) —, it is hard to argue why it cannot be seen as a Hindu Nationalist organization and the arguments about geography are unconvincing (and OR). So, there is perhaps a case to be made about describing the organization as a Hindu Nationalist one but I need to see support from multiple academic sources, which cover our subject non-trivially. So far, such evidence has not been presented. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

See the four sources cited above. They mention HAF as "Hindu nationalist". This article should be also mentioned here.

HAF has ties with the Hindutva groups and India and it was clearly founded following the condemnation of Hindutva ideology after 2002 Gujarat riots as described here. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you try writing a four-paragraph lead that accurately summarizes our entire content w/o fixating on labels? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

ORE entry on "Global Hindutva: Communicative Strategies and Resistance"

The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) is a Washington-based advocacy group that is aligned with the Hindutva ideology and carries out advocacy work for Hindutva, forming its legal infrastructure. Much of its advocacy is constituted around highlighting Hindu persecution in other countries, voicing Hindu rights in the United States, and opposing legislation against anti-caste-discrimination laws across the United States. These agendas are situated within the Hindutva infrastructure. Worth noting here is the organizing of the HAF targeting educational spaces and the academe, including the mobilization of legal campaigns targeting academia.
— DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.1498

Nice reproduction of our lead! TrangaBellam (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Textbook Revisionism

• Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman Report on VF-HEF proposed edits.
• Ruling of the Sacramento County Superior Court in the 2006 case

TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Aryans

Q (interviewer): Three issues seem to be contentious in the textbooks -- the Aryan invasion, position and rights of women vis a vis men and the caste structure. Some academics feel the Hindu groups' position on these issues are actually propaganda, attempts to rewrite history and are removed from fact. Any comment?

Suhag Shukla (Director, HAF): I think that is absolutely wrong because the latest DNA evidence in terms of human migration has shown that the human race began in Africa and worked its way upwards. So how do historians then allege it happened in the opposite way?
— https://in.rediff.com/news/2005/dec/29inter1.htm

@Joshua Jonathan: you have seen a fair share of Indigenous Aryans propaganda but this argument ought to be a novelty. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess Shukla was trying to suggest that the human race originated in Africa and that early humans migrated from Africa, spreading to different parts of the world. By invoking this larger context of human migration, Shukla is trying to create the sense that the story of human movement is more complex and ancient than the specific idea of an Aryan group entering India from Central Asia in the Bronze Age and significantly altering (almost completely) the civilization. Maybe he is trying to say that if you have to start, start from Africa. But this is just my guess based on my own understanding. I don’t think the reply supports indigenous Aryanism in any way. In this reply, Shukla is focused more on challenging the idea of a specific Aryan invasion bringing culture to India, rather than making any argument about the Out of India theory.

Also, it's very concerning if textbooks are using the term "invasion" instead of "migration." No scholar today calls it an invasion, based on all the evidence we have. But I don't know if thats the case in the textbooks. Migration is the correct term. DangalOh (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid TrangaBellam is right, here. But, she's a lawyer, working for the HAF; any argument goes, as long as it derails the opponent. But, to answer her question (how do historians then allege it happened in the opposite way): they don't. They say the first humans moved eastward, reaching India long before the first modern humans reached Europe. The Indo-Aryans were not the first to settle India. But who cares, as long as the people are uninformed, and can't give a meaningfull response to this remark? That's why they dislike Wikipedia: too many well-informed, skillfull people who don't take this narrative to be The Truth. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. Shukla has long been a supporter of Indigenous Aryans Bullshit; I was checking archives of some not-extant mailing lists and HAF has been consistent at opposing AMT since 2005, atleast. To quote from a HAF Press Release (2007),

The AMT is reviled by many Hindus due to its implicit proposition that a tribe of "Aryans" migrated into the Indian subcontinent [..] The scientists [..] concluded that there was no genetic basis to a claim that any migration occurred from west of India, and in fact, theorized that a northward migration may have occurred from India, out to Central Asia.

Do note that in the Press Release, they are opposed to AMT (Aryan Migration Theory), not AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory).

More to the point, I have never understood why you — DangalOh — have this habit of barging into topics that you understand very little about and leave mile-long comments that, sadly yet predictably, do not help. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the inconvenience. I didn’t know you needed to show a certificate of understanding from Trangabellam to reply on Wikipedia topics. I'll avoid the topics you're involved in due to your hostility. I remember once you also abused a reviewer because they failed your Good Article review. Such a narcissist. I was just giving my opinion, and I was clear that I have little understanding and that it was just a guess. Every day you learn something new, and I appreciate that due to your previous comment, I got to know what I didn’t know. I never claimed or pretended to be all-knowing smartass like you. And you will not decide who can comment where. You poke your nose way too much where it doesn’t belong too. Jeez… bye, thanks. DangalOh (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but you would have known that, had you bothered to read the subsection on "Textbook revisionism in California" in our article and the footnote, which references the source that I quoted from. The purpose of the t/p, after all, is to improve the article. And I would assume more good faith of you — and grant you more latitude — when you would assume the same of our community. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Earliest HAF days (2004)

So, they appear to have commenced operations by opposing Paul Courtwright's book on Ganesha — citing arguments by Malhotra and others — and demanding that publishers stop distributing it. They appear to have had a belief — since inception — about the academia being hell-bent on caricaturing Hindus. And, quite the penchant for rhetoric too; scholars who decided to withdraw their books from MLBD, after their decision to pulp Courtwright's work, got compared with East India Company!

Has any secondary source reported HAF's involvement on the locus? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice views (2005) on caste, too. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Phantasmic archaeology

HAF has a nice FAQ on the Ram Mandir - Babri Majid issue. Among many crackers, it has (emphasis mine):

The most recent excavations by the Archeological Survey of India — done with representatives of both sides of the dispute present and with one of the lead archeologists being Muslim — show that the Ram Janmabhoomi site has been in continuous use as a sacred site by Hindus and adherents of other Dharma traditions since the second millennia BCE.

Do these people have a fancy for spitting out random numbers? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

Can somebody convert the sourcing to sfn? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ffs ...

Above-average competence is expected if you are to edit a controversial article —

• Rajagopal, who heads HfHR — a competing NGO in the Hindu activism space in USA — and has been (unsuccessfully) sued by HAF, is not a proper source to use in the controversy section; neither is a propaganda paper from Turkey!
• Mukta Joshi's recent report should have been used to buttress the already existing section on "pro-India advocacy" than create one, afresh, titled "Accusations of lobbying efforts to influence U.S. Policy". It ought to be obvious but do not write w/o reading what's already there in the article.
• The content that was added to "Islamophobia allegations" is already covered — and notably, in a detailed manner — at the section on "Reception"; so, there was no need to create a subsection titled "Islamophobia allegations".
• Clarion India and Sikh Coalition are not reliable sources. (I am yet to read the other source used to draft a section on the supposed targeting of American Sikh community.)

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

+1. also WP:CONTROVERSY suggests against giant controversy sections Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

did not know clarion is nonRS. whoops Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)