Wikipedia page on the Sambhal violence has once again highlighted the platform’s susceptibility to biased narratives. The page attempts to frame the incident as being triggered by “Jai Shri Ram” chants, citing sources that rely heavily on allegations without verifying the ground realities.
One such reference cited on the Wikipedia page comes from a Telegraph article that claims people accompanying the court-appointed survey commission chanted “Jai Shri Ram” at the disputed structure site, provoking communal violence. The article reads, “Some people accompanying the court-appointed survey commission to the Jama Masjid in Sambhal on Sunday had set up a triumphal chant of “Jai Shri Ram” to irritate Muslims, in the presence of senior police and district officials, multiple Opposition MPs in Uttar Pradesh have alleged.”
Without providing independent evidence, the Wikipedia article attributes this information on Sambhal violence to allegations by opposition MPs, such as Sambhal MP Ziaur Rahman Barq. This narrative suggests that the chants incited local protests, leading to police action and subsequent violence.
However, video evidence and reports from the ground tell a different story. Footage of advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu side, and administrative officials conducting the court-ordered survey shows no signs of communal sloganeering or inflammatory behavior.
Wikipedia wants to burn down India! Contrary to their claim that slogans of Jai Shri Ram led to violence in Sambhal, the video footage of advocate Vishnu Jain and administration officials, entering the disputed site, for survey, on Court orders, shows no sloganeering, communally… pic.twitter.com/w5IQYxoYIB
— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) December 2, 2024
Wikipedia’s page fails to provide a balanced perspective. Ziaur Rahman Barq, who alleged police provocation, is himself among those charged with inciting violence. His political affiliations and potential vested interests are conspicuously ignored.
Following the violence, 25 individuals were taken into custody, and seven FIRs were registered against 2,500 people. The inclusion of stringent charges under the National Security Act (NSA) indicates that authorities view this as premeditated violence, not spontaneous provocation.
While opposition leaders blame the police, no evidence substantiates claims of excessive force without cause. Instead, reports suggest law enforcement acted to maintain order during a volatile situation.
Wikipedia Edits
The page erroneously refers to Hari Shankar Jain as the advocate involved when it is his son Vishnu Shankar Jain who is representing the Hindu side.
The page also calls Hari Shankar Jain, a pro-Hindutva lawyer. Attempts to edit these out are met with failure. Here are a few screenshots from the edit history that prove these statements were challenged, only to be ignored/rejected and reverted to the narrative-peddling version on the latest update.
By selectively citing allegations while ignoring contradictory evidence, Wikipedia perpetuates a misleading narrative. Its reliance on politically charged sources like The Telegraph to frame an incident as religiously motivated demonstrates a clear bias.
Wikipedia’s role as a supposedly neutral platform demands greater accountability. Misinformation disguised as “facts” not only misguides readers but also risks further polarization.
Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.