Wikimedia's Bias Against the Current Indian Government, Hindus, and Proud Indians: An Evidence-Based Analysis

In recent years, many individuals have raised concerns about Wikimedia, particularly its largest project, Wikipedia, showing bias against the Indian government, Hindus, and those who identify as proud Indians. While Wikipedia is intended to be a neutral and factual repository of knowledge, the platform's open editing system and the influence of certain editorial biases have sparked allegations of partiality. Here, I’ll present evidence from various incidents and examples to substantiate these claims.

1. Selective Citation of Sources

In numerous cases involving the Indian government and Hinduism, there is a tendency by Wikimedia to rely on Western-centric or left-leaning media outlets that portray a skewed perspective. The underlying narrative often depicts India’s current government as authoritarian or oppressive, with little space for alternative viewpoints, particularly those from the government or nationalist thinkers.

• Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) or Kashmir's special status revocation: The platform relies heavily on sources from outlets like The New York Times or The Washington Post, which have been criticized for their one-sided portrayal of these issues. Conversely, Indian sources that provide a different context or rationale, such as The Organiser or OpIndia, are often disregarded or flagged as unreliable.
• Articles about Prime Minister Narendra Modi frequently highlight his perceived shortcomings, drawing on controversial events such as the 2002 Gujarat riots, with minimal focus on the Supreme Court's exoneration of Modi or his economic initiatives such as Make in India.

2. Systematic Marginalization of Hindu Perspectives

Many Wikipedia articles related to Hinduism and India’s cultural heritage appear to downplay or misrepresent core aspects of the religion, its customs, and its global contributions.

• On the Hindutva page, a movement that seeks to protect and promote Hindu values, the term is largely characterized as exclusionary and dangerous. Wikipedia consistently presents it as aggressive, overlooking the scholarly views that see Hindutva as a reaction to multiple invasions, jihad, colonialism and subsequent marginalization.
• Articles related to Hindu festivals, deities, or symbols are often scrutinized for their historical associations with caste or regional tensions, while positive cultural, spiritual, and social elements receive less attention. For instance, the portrayal of Diwali often focuses on concerns about pollution rather than its spiritual significance.

3. Editor Influence and Left-Leaning Moderation

Wikipedia relies heavily on a voluntary group of editors and moderators to maintain and update its articles. This leaves room for organized groups (funded by jihadi sympathisers) or individuals with specific agendas to influence content. There are indications that certain editors, often left-leaning or ideologically opposed to the current Indian government, hold disproportionate power in shaping narratives.

• Editors with nationalistic or pro-government stances have been banned or faced significant restrictions for raising concerns about the portrayal of India or Hinduism, while those pushing anti-government narratives often go unchallenged.
• An investigation by India Today in 2022 revealed the presence of anonymous groups of editors systematically influencing articles related to India, Hinduism, and right-wing politics, often pushing critical or negative narratives without adequate rebuttal.

4. Bias in Representation of Political Figures

The biographies of Indian political leaders, particularly those aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), provide evidence of an unequal focus on controversies rather than achievements.

• The article on Narendra Modi contains extensive sections about his association with the 2002 Gujarat riots, though his exoneration by the Supreme Court receives limited coverage. His economic policies, like infrastructure growth and social programs, are also underemphasized compared to criticisms about his governance style.
• On the other hand, the page of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, reflects a positive narrative, despite Nehru's own controversies related to his handling of Kashmir and the Indo-China War of 1962.

5. Downplaying Attacks on Hindus

Wikipedia has been criticized for downplaying or underreporting attacks on Hindus in certain regions, especially in contexts like Kashmir or parts of Bangladesh and Pakistan.

• The plight of Kashmiri Pandits, who were driven out of the region in the late 1980s and early 1990s, is often portrayed as a historical footnote, with more emphasis placed on the political conflict between India and Pakistan.
• Articles related to the Bengal riots of 1946, Bangladesh Hindu persecution, or the exodus of Hindus from Pakistan receive sparse updates, while incidents involving anti-Muslim violence in India are meticulously covered with regular updates and references to ongoing debates.

6. Whitewashing Islamist Extremism and Radical Left-Wing Violence

When it comes to Islamist extremism or Maoist-related violence in India, Wikipedia often underplays or frames these events in the context of socioeconomic struggles, portraying the perpetrators as victims of systemic oppression. While socioeconomic analysis is important, it seems disproportionate compared to how right-wing Hindu groups or the Indian government are portrayed.

• Articles on Islamist terror attacks in India, such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks, often fail to capture the magnitude of the devastation caused or the ideological motivations behind them, whereas anti-government or anti-Hindu violence is frequently minimized.
• Wikipedia also portrays Naxalite violence through a lens of class struggle rather than terrorism, often downplaying the lives lost and communities devastated by these groups.

Conclusion

Wikimedia, through its community-driven Wikipedia platform, plays a significant role in shaping global narratives about governments, ideologies, and nations. However, the influence of certain editors, has led to a growing perception of bias against India’s current government, Hindus, and those who identify as proud Indians. Wikipedia's articles on these topics tend to emphasize negative narratives, rely on selective sources, and marginalize alternative perspectives.