Wikipedia, the so-called “encyclopaedia,” has created a dedicated page on the Sambhal violence that took place on 24th November 2024 during the court-ordered survey of Jama Masjid. In its description of the events, Wikipedia claimed that “some people accompanying the court-appointed survey commission at the mosque chanted ‘Jai Shri Ram’ to provoke Muslims,” and that the video of the incident went viral on social media. The claims were attributed to opposition MPs.
The page on Wikipedia read, “While the opposition MPs have made allegations that some people accompanying the court-appointed survey commission at the mosque chanted “Jai Shri Ram” to provoke Muslims, in the presence of senior police and district officials, with a video of the incident going viral.”
Interestingly, Wikipedia initially used an opinion piece written by controversial columnist Apoorvanand Jha for the leftist propaganda outlet ‘The Wire’, which claimed that Muslims were provoked by the ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogans. However, the link was later removed, and another link from The Telegraph became the main source of the same claim.
An older version of the page mentioned “Jai Shri Ram” slogan in the first paragraph linking it to Apoorvanand’s op-ed.
Later, the reference to The Wire op-ed was removed.
The latest version removed the mention of “Jai Shri Ram” slogan in the first paragraph.
In his op-ed, Apoorvanand made several unsubstantiated claims. First, he claimed that the second survey was conducted “two days after” the initial survey, which took place on the night of 19th November. This is factually incorrect, an oversight by The Wire’s editorial team as well. The second survey was conducted five days later, on 24th November.
He also claimed that the survey was carried out without prior notice. This is again incorrect. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain shared on X that the mosque committee had been informed with proper documentation about the second round of the survey a day prior, on 23rd November 2024. Interestingly, the op-ed was published on 26th November while Advocate Jain already shared the information on 25th November that the mosque committee was indeed informed.
This is the notice by advocate commissioner on 23rd nov which was duly received by lawyer for sambhal masjid committee at 630 pm on 23rd November. They were duly informed and were present in survey. pic.twitter.com/GGuC5gPwkA
— Vishnu Shankar Jain (@Vishnu_Jain1) November 25, 2024
The Telegraph report quoted Samajwadi Party leader and Sambhal MP Ziaur Rahman Barq as saying, “Some people who were with the commission were chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram.’ As the local people opposed this, the police opened fire and killed four people.” Barq further demanded that the police officials be identified and booked for the incident.
It is worth noting that Barq has been named as the main accused in one of the seven FIRs registered in the Sambhal violence case. He has been accused of instigating the Muslims living in the area during his visits two days prior to the incident. Interestingly, Wikipedia did not specify which “opposition leader” claimed that the violence occurred after the chants of “Jai Shri Ram,” even though this was mentioned on the page. Moreover, the information about Barq being booked was included only in a different section.
Interestingly, in the talk section, there is a dicussion between two editors, Xoocit and Cerium4B where the latter insisted that the claims that “Jai Shri Ram” slogans led to the violence should be kept. The status quo on blaming the slogan remained intact as “claims” despite the fact that there was ample evidence stating the slogans were raised after 11 AM though the violence erupted before 9:30 AM.
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) IT Cell Chief Amit Malviya shared a video of advocate Vishnu Jain and administration officials entering the disputed site for the survey. In the three-minute-long video, there was no indication of any chants of ‘Jai Shri Ram.’
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
Journalist Swati Goel Sharma also shared evidence suggesting that the slogans were not raised while the team was entering the disputed site but were chanted only after 11 AM, by which time Advocate Jain had already exited the property.
But here’s the truth:
— Swati Goel Sharma (@swati_gs) December 2, 2024
Slogans were raised only after 11 am, when advocate Vishnu Jain had already exited the disputed property. This is confirmed by TV channels (see video)
Yet, footage recovered by police shows masked rioters breaking CCTV cameras as early as 9:30 am (See… pic.twitter.com/yZg1RUn63f
Furthermore, she shared CCTV footage recovered by Sambhal police showing mobsters destroying a CCTV camera at around 9:30 AM, much before the slogans were raised.
The not-so-true fact-check in reference links of Wikipedia about conflict between AMASR Act and PoW Act
Another notable aspect of the Wikipedia page on the Sambhal violence was its use of a “fact-check” by a lesser-known website, Timeline Daily, which claimed that the argument stating Jama Masjid is not covered under the Places of Worship Act, 1991, was false. The article referred by Wikipedia cited CNN-News 18 anchor Rahul Shivshankar’s post, where he stated that the Places of Worship (PoW) Act, 1991, does not apply to Jama Masjid as it is an ASI-protected monument. The author of the so-called fact-check argued that Section 16 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act, 1958, basically nullifies Section 3 of the PoW Act.
It read, “However, perhaps before tweeting and quoting the particular subsection of the PoW Act, if the news anchor had researched a bit more, he would have found that Section 16 of the AMASR Act provides that a protected monument, which is a place of worship, cannot be used for any purpose inconsistent with its character.”
Analysis of Section 16 of the Ancient Monuments Act and Section 4(3) of the Places of Worship Act
Section 16 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, focuses on the protection of places of worship classified as protected monuments. It prohibits misuse, pollution, or desecration of such sites and mandates their maintenance in accordance with their religious or historical character.
Section 4(3) of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, provides exemptions to the general prohibition on altering the religious character of places of worship as they existed on 15 August 1947. It explicitly states that the provisions do not apply to ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites covered under the Ancient Monuments Act.
Section 4(3)(a) of the Places of Worship Act exempts ancient monuments governed by the Ancient Monuments Act from its ambit. This exemption recognises that protected monuments may have their governance rules under the Ancient Monuments Act, which includes the preservation of their religious character as detailed in Section 16.
Jurisdictional Overlap
Section 16 of the Ancient Monuments Act provides a framework for managing religious sites classified as protected monuments. On the other hand, Section 4(3)(a) of the Places of Worship Act avoids conflict by excluding such sites from its purview. This avoids the overlap where both Acts could theoretically apply.
Practical Interpretation
Section 16 does not nullify Section 4(3) of the Places of Worship Act. In fact, Section 4(3) accommodates Section 16 by exempting certain sites from the broader restrictions of the Places of Worship Act. The legislative intent appears to be harmonious, ensuring that religious sites classified as protected monuments are preserved under the more specific framework of the Ancient Monuments Act without contradicting the communal harmony goals of the Places of Worship Act. Section 16 of the AMASR Act rather complements than nullifies Section 4(3) of the PoW Act. The exemption in the latter explicitly acknowledges that the AMASR Act has authority over specific protected sites, indicating a clear legislative intent to allow both Acts to function within their respective domains without raising any conflict.
OpIndia’s dossier on Wikipedia
OpIndia’s 187-page dossier, released on 9th September, 2024, detailed how Wikipedia operates more like a publisher than a neutral intermediary. It highlighted how a select group of 435 administrators globally have significant control, including banning editors, blacklisting sources, and reversing edits, often reflecting editorial bias. The report also revealed financial ties between the Wikimedia Foundation and certain editors, suggesting conflicts of interest. Additionally, its collaboration with Google raises concerns about undue influence from big tech in shaping information narratives.
Arguing that these editorial interventions align Wikipedia closer to a publisher than a neutral platform, the dossier called for regulatory oversight under India’s Competition Act, 2002. Responding to the allegations, the Indian government issued a notice to Wikipedia on 5th November, 2024, challenging its intermediary status. OpIndia’s dossier on Wikipedia can be checked here.
