Hinduphobia of Wikipedia
Wikipedia has emerged as a key source for, at least a beginner level, information on any topic or personality around the world in the last 15–20 years. I have been using it myself for quite some time. The convenience of finding a very summarized version of all aspects relating to any topic has made Wikipedia a site of choice. Just like Google has become synonymous with searching online, we search if a topic has a Wikipedia page, to begin with.
However, over the years, one would (I have) realize that this convenience comes at a cost. And the cost is the accuracy and unbiasedness of the information. And while the political aspect of the biasness is one thing, when it comes to the Hindu faith or Sanatana Dharma, the racism, anti-paganism couldn’t be more apparent. Now imagine an average Hindu boy in his teens or early adulthood, the amount of vitriol that gets fed by Wikipedia, what impact does it have on the mind when they believe Wikipedia is the “know it all” of the information sphere on a particular topic? For parents, Wikipedia becomes one of the sources on how their kids will become deracinated Hindus, ashamed of their identity, ashamed of their history, apologetic of their practices, dismissive about the persecution of their ancestors and unhinged from their own family.
Time and again, shenanigans like demonizing Hindu symbols, one-sided anti-Hindu record of events, glorifying invaders of Bharat, whitewashing atrocities/genocides on Hindus, denying Hinduphobia, promoting conspiracy theories against Hindus, wrecking pages of Sanatani scholars who don’t subscribe to the Hinduphobic narrative, and many other extreme-left actions have been called out.
Here are some of the instances when the Hinduphobia of Wikipedia was on a blatant display.
1. Swastika
The Wikipedia page on Swastika incorrectly mentions phrases like “appropriation by Nazi party” and “German Nazi Party adopted the swastika as an emblem of the Aryan race”. Saying that Nazi party “adopted” Swastika is a lie.
For those who are not aware about the history of Swastika, let me give you a brief about Swastika.
Swastika is a sacred symbol of more than two billion Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. It dates back thousands of years and continues to be revered even today, around the world. Hindu texts and scriptures make several references to the term Swastika in the context of peace and well-being, even as a yogic posture, and can often be seen in Hindu homes, Mandirs, and sacred temples and shrines, especially to mark new beginnings. For Buddhists, the Swastika represents footprints of the Buddha; for Jains, it represents the tradition’s seventh spiritual teacher. Hindus draw Swastika whenever there is a new beginning — be it buying a new house or a new car — as a symbol of good luck. In case of Native Americans and the First Nations of Canada, , the swastika appears on the beadwork, basketry, pottery and jewelry of many tribes, from the Iroquois (ee-ruh-Kwaa) in the northeast, to the Sioux (soo) and Comanche of the upper Midwest and Great Plains, to the Apache, Navajo and Pima of the southwest, and to the Tlingit (Klinkit) and Makah tribes of the Pacific northwest, among others.
Hakenkreuz (or Hooked Cross in English), on the other hand, is the Nazi symbol of hate. The German language has various words ending with kreuz (kreuz being the cross) such as: Christenkreuz is Christian Cross; Ritterkreuz is Knight’s Cross; Balkenkreuz is Beam Cross; Krummkreuz is Crooked Cross. Incidentally, the first translation of his autobiography by an Englishman ETS Dugdale, who was fluent in German, in 1931 accurately translated the relevant passages and never once used the word Swastika. However, it was the second translated autobiography by James Vincent Murphy, which became popular, that deliberately mistranslated Hakenkreuz into Swastika while leaving other German words either in original form or translating them properly in English. Unfortunately, the media organizations in the West, such as the New York Times, and Hollywood also played a key role in spreading the mistranslation to the masses, including the Jewish people.
So,
Is Wikipedia unaware that Hitler’s symbol was Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross) and NOT Swastika?
Is Wikipedia unaware that Hitler never used Swastika in his speeches or his autobiography (the untranslated German version) but used the word Hakenkreuz (or Hooked Cross in English) to describe his symbol?
If any symbol was appropriated or adopted by Hitler’s Nazi party, it was Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross) and not Swastika.
The following links, I suggest the editors at Wikipedia take a look to educate themselves, would make things crystal clear on what symbol was “appropriated”:
- https://cohna.org/swastika/
- https://understandingswastika.org/
- https://cohna.org/swastika-is-not-hakenkreuz/
So, the question is, in spite of this pool of information available in the public domain, why are the editors at Wikipedia still engaged in demonizing the sacred Hindu symbol of Swastika?
2. Mughals Banned Sati
The Wikipedia page on “Sati (practice)” alleges that the Mughals banned Sati. The article claims that the “elite Rajput clans” practiced it. It also uses the word “become more widespread” (meaning it was widespread already) suggesting it was a regular practice. Maybe, for the editors of Wikipedia, what Meenakshi Jain found out, doesn’t really matter. What also doesn’t matter for the editors of Wikipedia, is that even in the recorded cases of Sati, as Meenakshi Jain says, “In all these instances that we have cited so far, we see the relatives, or the onlookers, trying to persuade the woman, ‘Don’t do this’. We don’t come across, in any of these cases, forcible compulsion on the woman asking her to immolate herself. In all these, the brother, the father, they are all trying to persuade her not to do it but she does it.”
What is amazing is, even as the editors at Wikipedia mention “During the early-modern Mughal period of 1526–1857, it was notably associated with elite Hindu Rajput clans in western India,”, they fail to make a connection. Secondly, what they are calling Sati, is actually Jauhar. Thirdly, have the editors of Wikipedia heard of the term Necrophilia? Whitewashing one of the most perverse forms of objectification of women by saying that they prevented women from dying but conveniently omitting what the Mughals did with alive women is the worst form of editorial practice I have seen in my life.
Portraying them as champions of women rights is the highest form of mental gymnastics. This thing sealed the deal for me to not waste my hard-earned money on Wikipedia ever again.
They need to watch this 1.5-hour talk (I know people these days want everything in 30 seconds but proper knowledge requires investing time) —
3. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose as Anti-Semitic
In Wikipedia’s page on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, they squarely call Netaji as anti-Semite. The article also goes into calling him a Nazi, Mussolini sympathizer (essentially trying to call him fascist).
What is troubling is that the very source the editors at Wikipedia have mentioned as a basis for calling him an anti-Semite (book by Romain Hayes called “Subhas Chandra Bose in Nazi Germany”) specifies a lack of evidence for the same.
The quote cited says, “The question that inevitably arises is what was his attitude to the greatest act of large scale industrial mass murder in history, one that was committed in his presence? That Bose chose to be silent is a testimony in itself. Would it have made any difference had he spoken out, if not to the Jews, then at least to his historical legacy? His biographer even implies that Bose wrote a partially anti-Semitic article for Goebbels’ newspaper Der Angriff. Interestingly, the article in question has never been found but it certainly did elicit a hostile reaction from The Jewish Chronicle which denounced Bose as ‘India’s Anti-Jewish Quisling’. There seemed to be a precedent for this insensitivity towards the ‘Jewish question’. Already, before the war, Bose had not particularly welcomed attempts to grant Jewish refugees asylum in India.” (emphasis mine)
How is Wikipedia relying on a source that contradicts itself? A careful reading of the sources suggests that the Wikipedia editors chose lack of the evidence as proof of guilt rather than proof of innocence.
At many places in the page, the editors of Wikipedia attempt to bootlick Nehru-Gandhi, trying to project them as more intellectually and ethically honest than Bose. This goes with the larger propaganda of the left where everyone other than Nehru-Gandhi is a Nazi sympathizer or anti-Semite or Zionist or even all three together — be it Savarkar, or RSS, or Hindu Mahasabha.
Having said all that, this is a highly reckless and pathetic attempt by the editors at Wikipedia at the character assassination of one of the greatest freedom fighters India.
4. Denying Kashmiri Hindu Genocide
The Wikipedia page of “The Kashmir Files” calls the movie “fictional” and “propaganda” and denies the genocide of innocent Kashmiri Hindus in spite of the movie being literally made based on testimonials of the Kashmiri Hindus who faced the genocide. The page writes, “It depicts the exodus and the events leading up to it as a genocide,”. Looking at the sources for the introduction paragraph, one finds BBC, Al Jazeera, The Hindu, Scroll.in, Newslaundry and TIME — all of them demonizing the movie as well as the assertion of Kashmiri Hindu genocide. The page also, at many places, makes use of quotations for certain words, including genocide, to ensure the genocide keeps getting denied.
While talking about the recent Nadav (or Danav?) Lapid’s Hinduphobic statements, the paragraph only talks about the support he received, which was only three other members of the jury, while completely and conveniently ignores the Israelis, including the consul general Kobbi Shoshani and Israeli Ambassador Naor Gilon, who condemned Lapid’s statements in the strongest terms. The “Talk” section of the page reveals the political leaning of the editors of Wikipedia very clearly.
Calling The Kashmir Files as “propaganda” is like calling Schindler’s List the same.
Does Wikipedia have an answer on how come more than 300K (government figures; actual number goes up to 500K) Kashmiri Hindus vanished from the Kashmir valley? Denying genocide is enabling it. Wikipedia owners and editors should remember that.
5. Deletion of Wikipedia Pages of Authors and Journalists
In March 2022, following the movie “The Kashmir Files” release, the Wikipedia pages of Chaiti Narula and Tuhin Sinha, who were supportive of the movie, were deleted. Before getting deleted, Chaiti Narula’s page was vandalized, including deletion of her review of the movie “The Kashmir Files”, and was done by the same person, an account TrengaBellam, who vandalized “The Kashmir Files” movie’s page and both edits were made at the same time.
Wikipedia editors have launched an attack on scholars like Vikram Sampath, with whom they don’t agree — vandalizing their pages with baseless accusations, most of which have been comprehensively debunked. What was appalling is that the person who made these baseless accusations proudly announced on Twitter about Wikipedia playing puppet to them. The editors also vandalized Sanjeev Sanyal’s page in a similar manner. In fact, a JNU professor, Anand Ranganathan’s Wikipedia page was deleted altogether.
Such behavior does not inspire any confidence in Wikipedia editors.
6. Denying Hinduphobia
Wikipedia editors, on the Talk page of Anti-Hindu Sentiment, deny Hinduphobia. While their anti-Hindu stance, under the pretence of being anti-Modi or anti-BJP, is more than clear, what was more amazing is the excuse they provide to deny use of the word Hinduphobia. In the Talk section of the page, it mentioned “I have no problem with documented cases of prejudice, if they exist. But I don’t see the point of narrating the Hindutva propaganda and then spending enormous amount of energy in shooting it down.”. True. Why give different perspectives? Just show the one you agree with and hide the rest.
If this is not lazy editorial standards then what is? In addition, one of your editors refused to use the term Hinduphobia while accusing a well-respected organization in the US of having “roots in Hindu nationalist organizations” and having an “agenda”.
This is precisely the definition of Hinduphobia as mentioned at https://understandinghinduphobia.org/working-definition/. Hindus are often accused of “dual loyalty” in the western world these days.
The extremist left accuses any Hindu who challenges them to be having a political agenda linked to some political party halfway across the globe. Unfortunately, Wikipedia editors have engaged themselves in the same.
7. Jai Shree Ram is a “Battle Cry”
In the Wikipedia page of “Jai Shree Ram”, the editors make a preposterous claim that “Jai Shree Ram” is a “battle cry” (hyperlinking it to define it as a “yell or chant taken up in battle, usually by members of the same combatant group”). The article also goes on to write, “The slogan has since then been employed for perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths.” A quick look at the sources suggest the usual suspects — New York Times, Scroll.in, and known Hinduphobes like Anantanand Rambachan and Christophe Jaffrelot.
Describing a humble greeting as a “battle cry” depicts the vicious hatred that the editors of Wikipedia have been harboring against the Hindu community.
Do the editors at Wikipedia know what “Shree” means in “Jai Shree Ram”? If the editorial team of Wikipedia has a problem with “Jai Shree Ram”, they basically have a problem with a Hindu being Hindu. And I don’t appreciate an organization that tries to actively trample upon my right to religious expression.
8. Delhi Riots 2020
The Wikipedia page of the “Delhi Riots 2020” has furthered the propaganda of Hinduphobia by providing a highly biased picture. The page starts with the first statement being “The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February 2020 and caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims.” (emphasis mine). A quick look at the two sources cited for this statement reveals — The Guardian (who played a key role in inciting Hinduphobia during Leicester riots as well) and New York Times. The eight sources cited in the first paragraph itself includes — The Guardian X 2, New York Times X 2, Washington Post X 3, and NPR. It’s amazing that the riots were in India, the communities involved are in India but the sources are from the West and all of them, notorious Hinduphobic publications.
The rest of the article squarely blames only Hindus — much like how the media behaved during the recent Leicester riots — which was comprehensively debunked by the NCRI (Network Contagion Research Institute) report as well as the Henry Jackson Society report. While the riots happened from both sides and there were deaths on both sides, it seems Wikipedia chose to provide only one side of the picture and paint the picture in a manner to depict one community as a villain and the other community as a victim.
These are only the select-few and the grave ones that I have highlighted.
It is important for Hindus, and even well-minded non-Hindus, to identify the rampant, vicious and toxic Hinduphobia of Wikipedia and ensure to not get influenced by these. More importantly, it is crucial to ensure that parents let their kids know about this.
Wikipedia frequently asks for “donations”, pretending to be supporter of “equal access to knowledge, forever”. While the “equal access” part is true, what they don’t specify is their definition of knowledge. Based on what we have seen above, it surely isn’t recognition of biases against Hindus.
From a non-Hindu standpoint as well, Wikipedia is a waste of time as the following video clearly suggests:
References:
https://understandingswastika.org/
https://cohna.org/swastika-is-not-hakenkreuz/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose#cite_note-35
https://www.opindia.com/2022/03/wikipedia-page-of-the-kashmir-files-vandalised-all-you-need-to-know/
https://twitter.com/Chaiti/status/1509044999647727617
https://twitter.com/Chaiti/status/1506127115397529602
