Digital Colonialism? Wikipedia Distorting Hindu History and Faith
Poonam Sharma
A new wave of controversy has swept over the public debate in India, following a complaint by Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, that the encyclopedia is biased against Hindus. Sanger’s charge, in the midst of wider debates regarding neutrality on online information platforms, reopened long-standing issues: Do Wikipedia articles actually reflect topics about India and Hinduism in a balanced manner? Is the site transparent and accountable enough for its power?
These are not new questions, but recent reports and statements have injected new urgency into them—eliciting calls in some circles for regulatory intervention, legal analysis, and reform. The article analyzes the substance of the controversy: what the champions of the bias claim say, what arguments have been advanced, what rebuttals there are, and what this might mean for knowledge platforms, media literacy, and Indian civic life.
When Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, blamed the site for having “anti-Hindu bias,” it re-sparked a tempest that had been brewing under India’s online awareness for years. For a nation that now adds millions of readers and thousands of editors to the globe’s most-visted reference webpage, the notion that Wikipedia could be quietly warping Hinduism’s image has hit a raw nerve.
The Shockwave of a Founder’s Confession
Sanger’s comments were not an isolated opinion. In a string of interviews and recent accounts, he accused Wikipedia — once conceived as an ideologically neutral crowdsourced encyclopedia — of being ideologically captured. He averred that the encyclopedia is now in line with “a narrow, Western liberal worldview” and exhibits “systematic bias against conservative, traditional, and religious communities,” including Hindus.
His expose was but an echo of a complaint frequently expressed by Indian intellectuals and media commentators: that Wikipedia’s representation of Hinduism, Indian history, and nationalist movements tends to have a skeptical or dismissive tone. From branding Ayurveda as “pseudoscience” to painting Hindu groups as “extremist,” the complaint refers to what many perceive as a more profound cultural bias.
India’s Growing Unease With Online Narratives
In India, where the online environment increasingly influences cultural and identity perceptions, the matter of ideological bias cannot be taken lightly. Wikipedia, due to its open-edit framework, is predominantly relied upon by students, journalists, and policymakers. However, as various Indian researchers point out, the editorial structure of the platform is hardly neutral.
Numerous contentious entries — from the “Hindutva” page to those on Indian history, caste, and temple heritage — are reported to be controlled by a few Western editors or non-Indian administrators who implement a selective use of “reliable sourcing.” Indian publications or scholars do not make the cut under Wikipedia’s policy of citations, while critical Western scholars are accorded authority.
This asymmetry, according to critics, results in a subtle but potent skewing — where Hindu traditions are evaluated according to colonial or liberal-secular paradigms, and indigenous perspectives are treated as marginal “nationalist” or “unscientific.”
The “War on India” Dossier
The topic made headway after the release of a report called “Wikipedia’s War on India.” The report gathered tens of examples illustrating how India-related articles consistently painted Hindu practices, leaders, and ideas in a negative light.
Some of its findings:
Religious bias: Hindu festivals and rituals articles tend to emphasize superstition or caste discrimination prior to cultural significance.
Historical contextualization: Ancient Indian science and success are framed with skeptical adjectives such as “claims” or “mythical accounts.”
Political representation: Hindu political or social movements are termed “right-wing” or “extremist,” whereas the same terms for other religions are eschewed.
Editorial management: A small cabal of international editors supposedly directs deletions of Indian-written sources, on the grounds of “national bias.”
The report led Indian pundits to call for accountability on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation. Others went as far as calling on the Indian government to implement oversight for worldwide platforms influencing national narratives.
Bias by Design: How the System Works
Wikipedia’s own architecture could account for such biases. No matter how open its perceived reputation, the site is controlled by an informal elite — veteran editors and administrators who have the ability to lock pages, revert changes, and determine which sources are “reliable.” Where things get political or religious, these are subjective calls.
Wikipedia’s “Neutral Point of View” policy, which was once taken as gospel, is now a war zone. Under Sanger, neutrality now stands for “consensus of the dominant ideology.” In application, that translates to views conforming to Western secular academia as being objective and traditional or faith-based interpretations as being “advocacy” and discounted.
For Hinduism, which lives off diversity, symbolism, and contextual meaning, such a filter very often results in oversimplification — or even misrepresentation.
The Indian Backlash and Policy Questions
Sanger’s remarks have further fueled demands in India for stricter regulation of foreign online players. The government has already questioned, in recent years, platforms such as X (Twitter) and Meta for selective censorship and cultural biases. Wikipedia is also in the doghouse now.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has allegedly asked the Wikimedia Foundation to explain itself regarding what it says were instances of misinformation on subjects pertaining to India’s religious and historical heritage. Think tanks and lawyers are also arguing whether Wikipedia can be treated as a “publisher” — bound by responsibility for content — or as a neutral intermediary.
Supporters of regulation believe that Wikipedia’s influence confers disproportionate cultural power. “If a billion people’s history and faith are being misrepresented, it’s not free speech — it’s cultural defamation,” contended a senior Indian academic who works on the digital ethics committee. Others caution that too much regulation will censor and prevent real debate.
Global Repercussions and Digital Decolonization
The row has spilled over to India. Around the globe, various religious and cultural groups — Orthodox Christians among them, as well as Buddhists — have complained of the same bias on Wikipedia. Sanger’s criticism then resonates with a broader question: Can a Western-regulated knowledge site accurately reflect global diversity?
Pundits see the problem as one of a larger “digital decolonization” movement — an initiative by countries and societies to take back control over narratives in cyberspace. As India pursues Atmanirbharta (self-dependence) in defence and technology, it might shortly insist on epistemic sovereignty — the ability to determine its own systems of knowledge in the internet.
Some Indian experts have even proposed creating a national encyclopedic platform governed by local scholars, Sanskritists, and historians, with transparency and accountability mechanisms absent in Wikipedia’s opaque editorial model.
The Way Forward: Reform or Replacement?
Larry Sanger himself has suggested the answer is decentralization. “We need a new Internet of knowledge,” he recently stated, “where no one thing, no one ideology, and no government gets to control the narrative.” His vision fits into India’s nascent drive for open, blockchain-led information platforms where multiple voices can coexist.
For Wikipedia, the future is tough. To acknowledge bias would undermine its ethical premise; to refuse to acknowledge it altogether turns away a mounting international audience. Its task now is no longer purely technical but ethical — to demonstrate that “open knowledge” does not necessarily equal “unfair knowledge.”
Conclusion
The allegation of “Wikipedia is anti-Hindu” is not merely about a single religion — it’s about who governs truth in the age of the internet. Larry Sanger’s disclosures have uncovered an injury that goes deeper than editorial contests. It’s a conflict between lived culture and coded consensus, between ancient civilizational memory and algorithmic authority.
As India’s digital reach increases, so will its need for representation — not as an object of observation, but as a voice of authority in its own narrative. Whether or not Wikipedia pays attention is likely to make it credible in the world’s largest democracy.
