On Tuesday, Karnataka Congress leader Satish Jarkiholi who has been widely criticized for his comments on the word ‘Hindu’ continued to profess that the word ‘Hindu’ is Persian and that its meaning is very dirty. “There is nothing wrong in what I have said, there are hundreds of records about how the Persian word (Hindu) originated,” he maintained.
According to the reports, the Karnataka Congress working president on Sunday in a rally at Nippani of Belagavi district, Karnataka had passed controversial comments against the word ‘Hindu’. He said that the word originated from Persia and was not an Indian term. He said that the original meaning of the term is dirty and insulting and also wondered why people in India were taking the term ‘Hindu’ so seriously.
#WATCH| “Where has ‘Hindu’ term come from?It’s come from Persia…So, what is its relation with India? How’s ‘Hindu’ yours? Check on WhatsApp, Wikipedia, term isn’t yours. Why do you want to put it on a pedestal?…Its meaning is horrible:KPCC Working Pres Satish Jarkiholi (6.11) pic.twitter.com/7AMaXEKyD9
— ANI (@ANI) November 7, 2022
“Where did the term Hindu come from? Is it our own? No. It is of Persian origin. Where is that? It refers to countries like Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. What is the relationship between India and such countries? How can it be an Indian term? There needs to be a debate on this. Please refer to sites like Wikipedia. If it is not an Indian term, why are some people taking it so seriously? If you understand its original meaning, you will be ashamed of yourself. The original meaning of the term is very dirty and insulting,” he was quoted.
The video clip of the incident went viral over social media with many including the Congress party criticizing the leader for passing controversial comments against Hinduism. The party issued a statement and distanced itself from the controversial comments. “Hinduism is a way of life and a civilizational reality. Congress built our nation to respect every religion, belief, and faith. This is the essence of India. The statement attributed to Mr Jarkiholi is deeply unfortunate and deserves to be rejected. We condemn it unequivocally,” said Congress MP Randeep Singh Surjewala.
Hinduism is a way of life & a civilisational reality. Congress built our Nation to respect every religion, belief & faith. This is the essence of India.
— Randeep Singh Surjewala (@rssurjewala) November 7, 2022
The statement attributed to Satish Jarkiholi is deeply unfortunate & deserves to be rejected. We condemn it unequivocally.
Meanwhile, Jarkiholi issued a clarification later saying that he did not mean to insult the Hindu religion. “I was only pointing out the Persian origin of the term Hindu and about various meanings of the term as found in some texts,” he said adding that he referred to articles on Wikipedia and other websites and that it was not his personal opinion.
However, on November 8 he stood by what he said in the rally and reiterated that the word ‘Hindu’ is Persian and has a very dirty meaning. “There is nothing wrong in what I have said, there are hundreds of records about how the Persian word (Hindu) came. This has been mentioned in Swamy Dayanand Saraswati’s book ‘Satyartha Prakasha’, Dr GS Patil’s book ‘Basava Bharatha’ and Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s ‘Kesari’ newspaper as well, these are just three-four examples, there are many such articles available on Wikipedia or any website, you should please read it,” he said amid the severe backlash over his statement.
Notably, Wikipedia is a community-driven project. The pages created on the platform are not owned by anyone and are open to editing by the public. At Wikipedia people, over time and several ‘edits’, climb up the ladder and acquire the authority to create pages and make edits. They even get the authority to ‘lock pages’ so others, who are not as ‘senior’ as them cannot change the details on the page.
The platform also has domination of left-leaning editors resulting in biased information being published on the website. The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, who is no longer involved with Wikipedia had gone on the record to talk about the bias of the online encyclopedia. Sanger had written that it has long forgotten its original policy of aiming to present information from a neutral point of view and that it had become a moral hazard.
“It is amongst the top 10 websites run by anonymous people with no accountability. They have become extremely opinionated and partisan. The anonymous people can easily be corrupted by governments, organizations and criminal enterprises,” he had said.
He also said that the platform discouraged primary sources as they needed interpretation. “It wants the authors to use secondary sources which tend to summarize the information in a way that is more credible. Hence, instead of being a broad and open-minded platform, it is turning into a monocultural establishment organ of propaganda,” he had said.
