Comments on the block
 It is a complaint and I have the rightly described the nature of edits being done by these two editors.Blocking me gives a wrong signal to them and probably will encourage such concerted POV pushing.
 I have already mentioned somewhere that the organisations supported by these editors have been mentioned as having fascist tendencies by world media.They cant deny that.
 Some examples against whites from User: Bose.
"There is no shortage of hindu-haters among white scholars, or their pinko moonbat lackeys in India. Surely some hindu-hater like Wendy Doniger, Deepa Mehta or Arundhati Roy has a copy of the film on their website. Find it. Then put it up." 
 "The world outside the US is irrelevant"
 Read the para "Human Rights Watch has been criticized as a fraud" in .See how the edits end."The world outside the US is less relevant"

 My mention of them as US government lawyer and (not Wikipedia's) was their attitude in the article.No comment below is racist in character.This is a false charge and the user who has made that should be blocked.Secondly, they insist on pushing some comments from Daniel Pipes (who is widely known for his Pro-Jewish POV leanings)

The complete thread of that discussion is mentioned below 
 Refrain from inserting original research that is irrelevant to the Babri Mosque article. Plus, the section on Pipes you inserted is tantamount to a character assassination of well-respected and US government appointed political scholar Daniel Pipes. Further perpetration of such a deed is grounds for reporting.Netaji  
Reporting as legal??TerryJ-Ho 
Is Wikipedia a US government property and you their lawyer? I have taken cue from you .In fact, I have been everyone as Anti-Hindu.TerryJ-Ho 

 In this comment I have not named anyone as Hindu Taliban such inference is just an imagination.I have only given a general example.