By Chetna Gill
A Tale of Accountability and Cultural Sensitivity
Wikipedia, the global beacon of crowd-sourced knowledge, finds itself entangled in a legal and cultural quagmire in India, as the Maharashtra Cyber Cell targets its editors over content related to Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, the revered Maratha warrior-king. The controversy, fueled by the recent release of the Bollywood film Chhaava, has escalated into a full-blown confrontation between Indian authorities and the Wikimedia Foundation, raising questions about the platform’s accountability, its open-editing model, and its ability to navigate the sensitivities of a nation deeply tied to its historical icons.
The Trigger: From Silver Screen to Digital Pages
The dispute erupted in the wake of Chhaava, a December 2024 historical epic directed by Laxman Utekar and starring Vicky Kaushal as Sambhaji Maharaj, the second ruler of the Maratha Empire and son of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. The film, which portrays Sambhaji’s valor against Mughal forces, has sparked a surge of public fascination—and scrutiny—over his legacy. Amid this wave of interest, attention turned to Wikipedia’s entry on Sambhaji, where certain passages were flagged by devotees, historians, and political groups as "misleading," "defamatory," and lacking credible sourcing.
Maharashtra authorities acted swiftly. On February 18, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis ordered the state’s Cyber Cell to investigate, citing the potential for the content to disrupt public harmony. The Cyber Cell issued a notice to the Wikimedia Foundation, headquartered in San Francisco, demanding the removal of the "objectionable" material. When the Foundation failed to comply after weeks of back-and-forth—reportedly involving over a dozen emails—the Cyber Cell registered a case against four unnamed Wikipedia editors on February 21. The charges, filed under Sections 69 and 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 168 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), accuse the editors of negligence that could "hurt religious sentiments" and "incite communal unrest."
A Revered Legacy at Stake
Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, who reigned from 1680 to 1689, holds a hallowed place in Indian history, particularly in Maharashtra. Known for his defiance against Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, Sambhaji endured torture and execution rather than capitulate—an act that cemented his status as a symbol of Maratha pride and resistance. His followers, numbering in the millions across India, view any perceived slight against him as an attack on their cultural identity.
The Maharashtra Cyber Cell’s notice highlighted specific issues with Wikipedia’s portrayal, alleging that it contained "distorted facts" and "unverified claims" about Sambhaji’s life and reign. While the exact content remains undisclosed pending legal proceedings, sources suggest the offending sections may involve interpretations of his military campaigns or personal life—topics that have long been debated by historians but are sacrosanct to his devotees. The Cyber Cell warned that such material risked "provoking a law-and-order situation," a concern amplified by the film’s release, which has mobilized Sambhaji’s admirers to defend his honor.
Wikipedia’s Model: Freedom or Flaw?
At the core of this standoff lies Wikipedia’s defining feature: its open-editing system. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia relies on a global community of volunteers—over 300,000 active editors—to create and maintain its content. This model has democratized knowledge, making Wikipedia a go-to resource for billions, but it has also exposed the platform to criticism over accuracy, bias, and cultural insensitivity.
In the Sambhaji case, Maharashtra authorities argue that Wikipedia’s lack of centralized control allowed "malicious edits" to persist despite repeated warnings. The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees Wikipedia, maintains that it does not directly edit content, leaving moderation to its volunteer editors. This hands-off approach has frustrated Indian officials, who see it as a refusal to take responsibility for material hosted on its servers. "Freedom of expression cannot override public sentiment or factual integrity," Fadnavis said, signaling a push for stricter oversight of foreign-based platforms operating in India.
The controversy echoes a broader pattern. In November 2024, India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a notice to Wikipedia over "systemic bias" in its articles, following a Delhi High Court ruling that criticized its open-editing system as "dangerous" in a defamation case. The Sambhaji Maharaj dispute has intensified this scrutiny, with some lawmakers calling for Wikipedia to be regulated as a publisher rather than a neutral intermediary.
The Slow Grind of Wikipedia’s Process
Wikipedia’s response—or lack thereof—has only deepened the rift. The platform’s editing disputes are typically resolved through "talk pages," where contributors debate changes based on verifiable sources. However, this process can be glacially slow, especially for contentious topics. In Sambhaji’s case, edits flagged as problematic reportedly lingered for weeks, even as the Cyber Cell pressed for action. The Wikimedia Foundation’s silence—beyond automated replies acknowledging the notices—has been interpreted as dismissive by Indian authorities, who lack direct jurisdiction over the U.S.-based organization.
This inertia contrasts sharply with the agility of traditional media, where corrections can be issued within hours. For Wikipedia, the absence of a clear chain of command complicates rapid responses, leaving it vulnerable to accusations of negligence. Defenders of the platform argue that its deliberative approach ensures neutrality and prevents knee-jerk censorship, but in a country like India, where history and faith are intertwined, such delays can be explosive.
A Cultural and Legal Reckoning
The Sambhaji Maharaj controversy is more than a legal spat—it’s a collision of values. For Wikipedia, the principle of open knowledge means tolerating diverse perspectives, even those that challenge popular narratives. Historical scholarship on Sambhaji, for instance, includes both hagiographic accounts of his heroism and critical analyses of his rule’s challenges—views that may clash with the reverence held by his followers. Wikipedia’s reliance on cited sources aims to bridge this gap, but when editors lack cultural context or sources are disputed, the result can inflame rather than inform.
Indian authorities, meanwhile, prioritize social cohesion over unfettered expression. The IT Act empowers the government to demand the removal of content deemed harmful to public order, a threshold that Sambhaji’s case arguably meets given his emotive legacy. The Cyber Cell’s actions reflect a growing impatience with global tech platforms that operate beyond India’s reach, a sentiment shared by other nations grappling with Wikipedia’s influence.
The Road Ahead
The Wikimedia Foundation now faces a dilemma. Ignoring India’s demands could lead to punitive measures, such as blocking Wikipedia in parts of the country—a step China and Turkey have taken in the past. India, with its vast digital population, is a critical market for Wikipedia, contributing millions of page views monthly. Yet, bowing to pressure risks undermining the platform’s global ethos, setting a precedent for governments worldwide to dictate content.
For now, the legal case against the editors proceeds, though their anonymity complicates prosecution. Maharashtra officials have hinted at broader reforms, with Fadnavis advocating for laws to hold platforms accountable for "distortions of history." The controversy has also galvanized Sambhaji’s followers, with protests planned outside Wikipedia’s virtual "doors"—a symbolic gesture against an entity with no physical presence in India.
As this intricate saga continues to evolve, Wikipedia finds itself standing at a pivotal crossroads. The very essence of its mission—promoting the free exchange of knowledge—is being tested in a nation, where the past is not merely chronicled but is effectively molded to serve contemporary agendas. The implications of this situation could compel global platforms to reevaluate their approach, striking a delicate balance between maintaining their commitment to openness and honoring the complex narratives that resonate within local contexts.
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and WhatsApp Channel
