Talk:Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

Anti-Gandhi propaganda

This article seems to have been written by member of some anti-Congress group such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or Khalistan. The book was trashed by almost every reviewer, except some BJP-RSS-Bajrang Dal members and Khalistani groups and their supporters. While the author of this article has written a lot about the statements from fascist Hindus or Khalistani supporters like Ed Towns, it doesn't mention anything about hundreds of secular reviews which dismissed the book as propaganda. I will add some of these reviews to balance the article. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP address, just by using "secularist" adjective by you with anybody's name does not prove them secularist. You are involving in allegations here without providing any concrete data. Just because some article or fact does not suit your POV it cannot be declared to be written by RSS and Khalistani groups. Please note that you are alleging this on the author of the article as well without any logical data. --Roadahead (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The author is a well respected American. He is by no means part of the groups that he is being accused of. The problem is that people don't accept the facts and the facts are that Gandhi did and said many things that if exposed to Dr. King or Obama would make them distance themselves from Gandhi. 58.65.172.241 (talk) 12:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

More biased editing from anti-Congress groups

The anti-Congress BJP-RSS extremists and Khalistanis are now trying to remove any mentions of criticism of this book. A user called Roadahead removed the entire criticism section saying that "please do not put vague comments by anybody; reivewers need 2b credible".

This is so ridiculous! Two of the critical reviews are from peer reviewed journals, and one is from a well-established newspaper. How is American Humanist Association's The Humanist less credible than a politician like Edolphus Towns, who made a lengthy rant against Gandhi in Congress, because he is financed by Khalistanis in US and Canada? How is The Kansas City Star less credible than "Dr. Baldev Singh", who seems to be either a BJP-RSS or a Khalistani anti-Congress source?

I think people who don't know how to properly spell "reviewers" and "to be" don't know of things like American Humanist Association. Or maybe they are just trying to censor any criticism of the book.

I request the moderators to keep a watch on this article to prevent BJP-RSS and Khalistani extremists from manipulating it to suit their own agenda. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back dear IP address. First off Dr. Baldev Singh is a retired pharmaceutical scientist with more than 100 patents to his name. He is a well known researcher on Indian and Sikh history along with other theological studies and has several published papers to his name. You have very conveniently tagged him as "nobody", Khalistani and BJP-RSS supporter. You may have dislike for these groups but please note that wikipedia is not a place for guess work and personal vendetta. Then you allege that congressman Edolphus Towns is not credible and reviewer and his mention of the book in the US congress is not worth mentioning, thus portraying the proceedings of US congress not worthwhile to mention. Please do not bring the Indian Congress versus BJP-RSS fights to wikipedia as its not a soap-box. Thanks --Roadahead (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Edolphus Towns and Dr. Baldev Singh are not credible. I just asked how are articles from journals and newspapers less credible than these. I did not remove the references of Edolphus Towns and Dr. Baldev Singh from the article, but you removed all the references provided against the book. Before advising me ("wikipedia is not a place for guess work and personal vendetta"), why don't you look at your own actions? Are you a publisher of the book? Or are you related to the author, or some RSS-BJP-Khalistani group? If not, why did you remove the references? You didn't even initiate any discussion on the talk page. You just removed them, saying that they need "2b credible". The references were provided using appropriate templates, with all kinds of details, including publisher's name, time of publication, author etc. If you have subscriptions to online libraries, you can enter all the details provided in the references and read the articles. As an example, you can find the The Kansas City Star reference on Newsbank. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP address, perhaps you are not even understanding/reading your own words. Please note that you have said in your comments above -"...Dr. Baldev Singh, who seems to be either a BJP-RSS or a Khalistani anti-Congress source" without any knowledge about the reviewer and his credibility. Then you alleged that "...Edolphus Towns, who made a lengthy rant against Gandhi in Congress, because he is financed by Khalistanis in US and Canada". Both these baseless allegations from you come for what purpose? Are you not trying to say that they are not credible? Or are you just involving in guess work? Later, you proceed with your guess work by asking irrelevant questions like "Are you a publisher of the book? Or are you related to the author, or some RSS-BJP-Khalistani group?". Please note that one of your reviewer Williams, Xavier has no credibility at all, in his own words on the review that you are pushing onto wikipedia he says, "I am not a student of history and so am not in a position to give a real picture of Gandhi.". So what makes Williams, Xavier a credible reviewer of a 20 years of research work which has all its sources very well cited?. Later, Xavier in the book review that you are using says, "Khuswant Singh, a turbaned Sikh from the same community as G.B.Singh, has also written a defamatory treatise on Gandhi.". Here Xavier reflects his assumption that G.B. Singh wrote this book because he is also a Sikh. Please note that Wikipedia is not a blog, its an encyclopedia and reviewers of a book are expected to have some credibility to their name.--Roadahead (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Xavier's review lacks addressing the issues and the facts presented in the Book. Instead of arguing the facts of the book, Mr. Xavier resorts to ad-hominem attacks and emotional outbursts. He attacks the Author because of his religion. This is not a Book Review but racist Gandhi Propaganda. It seems Mr. Xavier hasn't even read the book. Mr. Xavier's source should be removed on the ground of violation of Wikipedia Guildelines. Princhest 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we should remove this article, since it is anti-Gandhi propaganda. It seems Mr. G. B. Singh hasn't even read the vast amount of Gandhi literature, most of which reflects his secular views and empathy for all groups, including Blacks and Dalits. In his book, Mr. G. B. Singh resorts to biased outbursts (he uses words like "Hindu propaganda" - this reflects his assumption that Gandhi 's followers are only Hindus, while Xavier is a Syrian Christian). Anyway, in case religious extremists from RSS and Khalistani groups still find some excuse to remove Xavier's source, I've added some more credible sources.

By the way, what makes Mr. Xavier any less credible than Mr. Baldev Singh, when it comes to Gandhi? It was published in Midwest Book Review, a reviewed publication which is not affiliated to Congress, Gandhi, or Indian government. On the other hand, Baldev Singh's review was published on SikhSpectrum, which has pro-Khalistan bias. Moreover, you (the two users whose only edits are heavily biased against Gandhi) argue that Xavier is not credible because he is not a student of history. How is Mr. Baldev Singh, a retired pharmaceutical scientist with more than 100 patents, is more credible when it comes to making historical or political commentary. According to you he is a "well-known resarcher", but I can't seem to find any evidence regarding the same. He has no history or politics related publications in reknowned peer-reviewed journals. He doesn't have any books related to this topic, published by non-Khalistani sources. It will be my pleasure to remove Mr. Xavier's review, if you allow me to remove Mr. Baldev Singh's review as well. Thank you very much (formerly IP address). SecularForces (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh one more thing - if Mr. Xavier is anti-Sikh, Mr. Baldev Singh is also an anti-Christian. From his review: "The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth." These are typical anti-Christian, anti-secular views of facsist RSS members and Khalistanis. SecularForces (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Secularforces, Your sense of honesty and credibility is questionable. You come out with cook-up accusation and use ad-hominem attacks and accuse others of propaganda while but forget to note that the people you are quoting from like Xavier Wiliam show racist tendencies. How smug? We will discuss anything related to this book but not out-of context racist accusations shown by you. Questioning an ideology is not racism; attacking an individual because of his religion is racism which in this case is shown by Mr. Xavier. Mr Xavier has attacked GB Singh for his being a Sikh. Hello? You seem to be too immature to understand this. A racist is someone who has contempt for someone belonging to particular community or race. Baldev Singh may be questioning the ideology of a religion, which is not racism at all. Where are you coming up with cook up definitions? I have added Xavier's racial overtone on G.B. Singh being a Sikh, in the review section Princhest 14:48 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SecularForces, (formerly User talk:203.158.89.10 ) you are continually blasting one baseless claim after the other. Why are you so much obsessed with the word "Khalistan"?. First, you claimed that I belong to some Khalistan group, than you claimed the Dr. Baldev Singh and senator Edolphus Towns are affiliated to some groups and now you are alleging that SikhSpectrum is biased towards Khalistan point-of-view. Can you justify all these claims before we proceed to invest time in discussion with you? --Roadahead (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Secularforces" is not secular at all. He is a Gandhian fanatic and a Hindu fascist without a mask.58.65.172.241 (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Towns remark

I think there's something wrong with the timing of Towns' remarks. He starts with "Madame Speaker" but that statement is supposed to be a part of the 109th United States Congress, but the speaker of the house was Dennis Hastert. It wasn't until the 110th United States Congress (in 2007) that Pelosi took over (making the "Madame Speaker" line make sense). Suggestions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I checked the congressional record and I found this particular speech of Rep Towns in the 110 session. Thanks for pointing it. I have corrected it now. Princhest 20:42 25 February 2008 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princhest (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

References needed not Propaganda

The following comment is false and lie pertaining to the reference of Thomas Clark and seriously violates the POV guidelines of Wikipedia. Clark no where has mentioned in his book review about the lobbyist relating to Indo-American relations and neither he labels this book as propaganda.

"The book has been touted by political lobbyists in the United States who are opposed to Indo-American relations but has been criticized by numerous academics as "one sided", "crude", "inflammatory", "propaganda" and "deplorable ignorance". We will have to take this out.

Princhest 10:32 PM, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning /Watch [| User:Goingoveredge]

The editor Goingoveredge is really going over the edge in his/her propagandist approach and is involving in entirely baseless claims with no substantiations in attempt to create negative image of the author. Particularly, the following edits from this user are worth to show this: -

1. [[1]]

Contention: How did the editor decide that the category should be "Anti Indian Sentiment"?

1. [[2]]

Contention: Baised. Violated NPOV.

1. [[3]]

Contention: This is editor's deliberate attempt to enforce his/her own POV. He deletes an appropriate observation of Williams write up which lacks proper credentials of a review or critique.

1. [[4]]

Contention: Absolutely baseless! The editor has crossed all limits of ethics by this edit. He/she can be charged under the law for created hatred against the author. Can the author substantiate this claim? If not he should banned from editing wikipedia because his/her intentions are quite clear to anybody with decent understanding of Indian politics.

I'll be leaving a message at user's talkpage as well.

Regards,

--Roadahead (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This really tells more about the agenda of Gandhi Apologists who try to smear malicious lies against anyone who questions debaucheries of Gandhi. Some Peace! After all they are followers of a Man whose beliefs and practices are now being exposed and they can't bear the truth. What a better way could be to know Gandhi, the so-called apostle of peace-other than to look at his followers who breathe venom and grudge of criminal proportions. User: Princhest (talk)9:55 PM, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Warning for user: Goingoveredge

For the edit [5]

Please stop vandalizing the article with your unsubstantiated claims and false data. --Roadahead (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Goinoveredge is violating all rules of Wikipedia. The hostility here shown by him is deplorable.

Princhest (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing user: Goingoveredge's reverts and edits

I'm removing the edits and revert as you have not responded to my posts on the talkpage above. If you feel that your edits are correct, please substantiate them in accordance with wikipedia policies. --Roadahead (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars

I've edited the article a little -- it still remains protected, so that you folks can cool down and use the time to read some Wikipedia guidelines and polices. Please keep these things in mind:

• This article is not a hate site for the book. Please don't turn and twist the references to describe the author as an advocate of Khalistani separatism, or Ed Towns as an "Indophobic" who "advocates in the fringes of the US congress who desire discrimination, violence and genocide of Indians". Unless you've some good references, please don't add unsubstantiated claims like "the book has been touted by political lobbyists in the United States who are opposed to Indo-American relations".
• This article is not an advertisement for the book. Please don't add loads of quotes from the book or its reviews to impose your point-of-view on the reader. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Gandhi, but this version of the article is clearly an example of badly-written propaganda.
• The edits involved here seriously need to read WP:NPOV and other policies, and understand that Wikipedia is not a place to impose your anti-Gandhi or pro-Gandhi viewpoints on others. If you want to bash or praise Gandhi, please use a blog or a forum. As WP:TIGERS says, the problem here is that "You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral."
• In my opinion, the 12-hour block on the three users involved here was fairly justified -- all three seem to be single-purpose accounts involved in contentious edits involving propaganda. Please note that calling Gandhi a pedophile or other editors 'Hindu propagandists'/'racist bigots' will soon get you blocked from Wikipedia.

Also, some of the references are wrong or do not contain the text that they are supposed to support. I have removed such references. For example, the 50 Things You're Not Supposed to Know by Russ Kick reference states the page number as '137', but the book has only 128 pages. The only Gandhi-related thing that this book talks about is his refusal to let his dying wife take penicillin and it's on pages 55-58. Similary, The Age reference doesn't mention the book or the author. I have also removed irrelevant links related to Subhash Chandra Bose -- nothing to do with this book. utcursch | talk 09:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Utcursch, you are guilty of compositional fallacy when you say "all three seem to be single-purpose accounts involved in contentious edits involving propaganda.". Can you now help me understand where I've pursued propaganda?. That aside, Wikipedia does not prohibit single purpose contributions as many people are specialists of a single topic only and many others move slowly from one topic to the other. You have very quickly noted what's being said about Gandhi and Hindu's and warned other editors with banning. However, you have conveniently left out user: Goingoveredge's calling other editors "terrorists", "secessionists", "extremists", "bigots" and what not. This editor went onto calling the author of the book as "terrorist". I see no waring from you to him? Can you explain this cherry picking by you while exercising your administrative powers? Instead, you went onto catering to user: Goingoveredge's POV and right after he pointed you to this page and gave you the link to what he thinks is "authentic" you quickly jumped in and froze that article to that edit. For all those hours you froze the article the authors name was tagged with "Khalistani" seccessionist by user: Goingoveredge. By your actions you have silently promoted that edit involving name calling. Now you have come back and revised the article which is again not justified. For example, you have deliberately magnified criticism of the book and placed it before any other positive review while simultaneously compressing any positive review. Moreover, you have maintained some "Xavier's" ad hominem attack filled review which has no credibility to be on wikipedia. Did you notice that Xaviers has no credibility on history and he accepts that in the same personal attack filled review that you have maintained? You have neither responded to my first objection (your talkpage) nor have changed your way of dealing. Again, I not find your exercising of admin powers are neutral or exemplifying wikipedia policies. --Roadahead (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not entirely happy with the recategorization (I mean, the book is pure Khalistani Communalist revisionism and propaganda and should be catted as such, per WP:SPADE it does not behoove us to wikilawyer over this) I am generally satisfied with the presentation at the current version, noting that the lead should mention the scholarly consensus behind the dismissal of this piece of trash.Goingoveredge (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Utcursch, Let me allow to question that why have you have allowed hostile hate against Sikhs by allowing users Goingoveredge to call them terrorists without giving any warning to the above user Goingoveredge. Now, is this Hindus supporting Hindus against the author who is a Sikh which you don't want to call Hindu Propaganda? It is simple and complete bias to allow an opinion of POV that aims communal hatred against Sikhs which is a neck deep in India and is being allowed to be propagated under your nod.Views can be different but lets not suffocate others with brute force. Princhest (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Goingoveredge, You are entitled to your views but not propagandistic hate. If you want to discuss the book, let do it but we need to present the contents of the book before we can do that right? I hope you can get over the grudge and come on common grounds to start a fruitful discussion. Princhest (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What a stupid edit war!

I wonder what Gandhi would have thought about people fighting over him! And preaching religious hate in the name of Mahatma! Go read his autobiography and maybe you will calm down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.140.140 (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Racist review

Does this non-notable and (frankly sick and disgustingly racist, where he compares Hindus to Nazis) review by a non-person [6] with no sholarly or academic credentials in the field of history or any subject relevant to Gandhi (he's essentially a pharmacist and , by the looks of it, a Khalistani crank) notable in any sense of the word as it is interpreted on wikipedia? People who compare Muslims to Nazis are denounced as "Islamophobes" and never included on wikipedia. Why should this?Goingoveredge (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Goingoveredge, Hitler is considered a trendy tyrant in India. [7] I think you are probably refering to this statement "Untouchabilty is as integral a part of Hindu faith as anti-Semitism was to the Nazis." This statement is on P 235 of the book and given by Beverly Nichols in her Verdict on India. It is not the statement of the author or the above reviewer you mention. It is comparison of Untouchability present in Hinduism to racism NOT Hindus. Are you mad because you want us or world to not discuss the practice for Untouchability and Gandhi's emulation of it? All religions are subject critical scrutiny. I think, you should get a copy of the book and read it before making gross generalizations. Moreover, you can't get away when the so-called Hindu Nationalist groups openly endorse Hitler and his policies in India. Just silencing others by attacking them with ad-hominem attacks is simply NOT going to work. We question racism and let me ask why are you protecting racism? No body is saying Hindus are racist but the element of racism present in practice of Untouchablity which was emulated by Gandhi can't be ignored. You specifically compare Sikhs with "terrorists" bombers" 'cranks" and yet blame others of comparing Hindus to Nazis when they are not. You should leave the individuals alone and discuss the philosophy of caste and Untouchability and Gandhi's emulation of this. Princhest (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets discuss the points presented in the book and not restore to vilification of Sikhs. Princhest (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that User:Goingoveredge purpose is to choke the discussion on Gandhi and his alleged racism here. The User:Goingoveredge can't provide any reasonable input for the discussion on the above topic and restores to villifying racism against Sikhs, deleting responses and vandalism of articles to make his point. Princhest (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hindu Varna System and Gandhi

The relationship between Varna System and Gandhi is like two sides of the same coin, according to the book. The foundations of Varna is laid on the color of skin akin to racism. According to the book, Varna is a Sanskrit word that means color or appearance. The Hindu system of Varna divides people into four varnas or caste based on the skin color or appearance- Brahmins, Kshtariyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. The fifth ones are known as Ashutas, Panchamas-the Outcast, the Untouchables. They happen to be the Black Untouchables of India who are forced to live in rat-infested conditions in India. This is the worst system of human slavery man has ever created to exploit humans based on skin color or appearance. The Untouchables are considered impure by birth according to the Laws of Manu mentioned in the Vedas. Gandhi being a staunch supporter of the Varna system of the Vedas endorsed the century old racism against the Blacks both in India and Africa. Princhest (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)