Section break
Let me state a fact: if you think "Religious violence in India" has nothing to do with anti-Hindu violence, then I will move it to Violence by Hindus in India against other ethinicites. Then we will debate about what should be here, and what should go there. If you are disagreeing with the fact that anti-Hindu violence is real, then you should get your facts correct (and wikipedia here will not help you, unfortunately). Google is full of webpages, until you subscribe to Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial, common around here, then it will be a littler harder to find. Haphar's theory of what is religious violence and what is not is his own theory, and as such he is entitled to have his own opinions ("POV", a wikiaholic would say) - while they stay out of the article. I am personally entitled to my opinion that his theory is laughably ridiculous - Islamic terrorism - enough said. Regarding having found books about religious violence in India, who is saying it is not present in India? I am saying that no such country exists with two different religions coexisting, and no act of violence ever happening. Having found books doesn't make it worthy of having an article about it. For example, "Xenophobia in eastern Europe" is a well studied phenomena, but we don't have an article about it.

What it does attain, though, is a major part in the discussion. Your rejection of anything else is incorrect.

Anyway... every year there is a new crop of trolls and POV pushers, and my energy is better spent elsewhere. I would just say that "Religious violence" does not refer to "Hindus killing Muslims" - it refers to "Hindu and Muslims killing each other, and the people with local majority winning. And that is the fact. If you want to put otherwise in the article, go ahead and do it. Anyone believing that article will be brain dead anyway.talk