Centre summons Wikipedia executives over fake information on cricketer Arshdeep Singh's page
New Delhi, Sep 5: The Indian government on Monday slammed Wikipedia for publishing false information on cricketer Arshdeep Singh's page that linked him to the separatist Khalistani movement, saying such incitement cannot be permitted.
Singh faced vitriolic attacks on social media by some users after he dropped a crucial catch in a thrilling Super 4 Asia Cup clash between India and Pakistan in Dubai on Sunday.
After the missed catch, information on his Wikipedia page was changed to link him to the separatist Khalistani movement.
Minister of State for IT Rajeev Chandrasekhar took to Twitter to slam such a move.
"No intermediary operating in India can permit this type of misinformation (a)n(d) deliberate efforts to incitement (a)n(d) user harm - violates our govts expectations of safe and trusted internet," he said.
It was also said the Ministry of Electronics and IT has summoned executives from Wikipedia to explain the false post but officials denied any such move.
According to the edit history of the cricketer's Wikipedia page, an unregistered user replaced the words "India" with "Khalistan" at several places on the profile and his name was changed to "Major Arshdeep Singh Bajwa". But the changes were reversed within 15 minutes by Wikipedia editors.
The slanderous linking of him to the Khalistani movement was said to have been done by elements in Pakistan.
Big social media firms have drawn flak in the past over hate speech, misinformation and fake news circulating on their platforms.
The government had last year notified new IT rules to make digital intermediaries more accountable and responsible for content hosted on their platforms.
The rules required social media companies to take down contentious content quicker, appoint grievance redressal officers and assist in investigations.
Significant social media intermediaries those with more than 50 lakh users have to follow additional due diligence, including the appointment of a chief compliance officer, a nodal contact person and a resident grievance officer and all three officials will have to be residents in India.
The IT ministry, in June, circulated the draft rules that propose a panel to hear user appeals against inaction on complaints made, or against content-related decisions taken by grievance officers of social media platforms.
At present, "there is no appellate mechanism provided by intermediaries nor is there any credible self-regulatory mechanism in place", the ministry had said.
Several cricketers and politicians have backed Arshdeep Singh saying anyone can make a mistake in a high-pressure game.
Pakistan needed 34 runs to win when Ravi Bishnoi came in to bowl the 18th over. Arshdeep Singh dropped a relatively easy catch of Asif Ali on the third ball of the over, which led to a massive momentum shift and Pakistan winning by five wickets.
Pacer Arshdeep Singh was called in to bowl the final over but was unable to defend seven runs.
No intermerdiary operatng in India can permit this type of misinformation n deliberate efforts to incitement n #userharm - violates our govts expectation of Safe & Trusted Internet #wikipedia @GoI_MeitY #SafeTrustedInternet pic.twitter.com/Qm6HdppM1k
— Rajeev Chandrasekhar 🇮🇳 (@Rajeev_GoI) September 5, 2022
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ballari violence: Were cops made scapegoats to cover political failure?
Bengaluru: Across Karnataka, a serious discussion has begun after the violence in Ballari and the swift action taken against police officers who were on the ground that day. The core question being asked is simple: when law and order fails, why are police officers the first to be shown the door, while political responsibility is quietly pushed aside?
The January 1 clash in Ballari was not a sudden street fight. It was a political confrontation involving supporters of two sitting MLAs. A banner related to the unveiling of a Valmiki statue became the flashpoint. What followed was stone-pelting, firing, and the death of a Congress worker. The situation spiralled within hours.
Within a day, Ballari SP Pavan Nejjur was suspended. Soon after, senior officers were reshuffled. Deputy Inspector General of Police Vartika Katiyar was transferred. No official reason was cited in the notification. But the timing made one thing clear: accountability, at least on paper, had been fixed.
Since then, there has been unease within police circles and political debate outside it.
Unconfirmed reports that Nejjur attempted suicide after his suspension were firmly denied by senior officers and the home minister. They said he was safe, resting, and under stress. Still, the very fact that such reports gained traction says something about the pressure officers feel when action is taken overnight, without public clarity.
Opposition leaders have called Nejjur a scapegoat, pointing out that he had taken charge only hours before the violence. They have asked how an officer can be blamed for a political clash he barely had time to assess. They have also drawn parallels with earlier incidents where police leadership was suspended after tragedies, while political decision-making remained untouched.
However, responding to this criticism, Home Minister G Parameshwara rejected the argument that the suspension was unfair because Nejjur had assumed charge only hours earlier. “It is not important whether he reported to duty on the same day (of incident) or one hour back. Duty is duty. He is not new to the department. IPS officers are trained to handle such situations any time. If he had acted swiftly and promptly, he could have prevented the situation from escalating.” He had said adding that Nejjur did not discharge his duties properly and that this was the reason for his suspension.
Now, fresh and unconfirmed reports suggest that Vartika Katiyar may have met a senior cabinet minister, questioning why she was made to pay the price for a situation that was political in nature. There is no official confirmation of this meeting. But the talk itself has added fuel to the debate.
What is being discussed in the state is not whether the police made mistakes. Many acknowledge that the situation on January 1 was mishandled. A clash earlier in the day was allowed to cool down without strong preventive action. Later, a banner came up near a politically sensitive location. The crowd should not have been allowed to build up. Better anticipation was needed.
At the same time, critics are asking whether the entire burden can be placed on officers when the trigger itself was political rivalry. Who installed the banner? Who mobilised supporters? Who had armed private gunmen present at the spot? These are questions that are still part of the investigation, yet administrative punishment moved faster than political accountability.
This has led to a wider comparison with past incidents, including the Bengaluru stampede after the RCB victory celebrations. There too, police officers were suspended after lives were lost, while decisions taken at higher levels were defended as unavoidable. Many are now saying Ballari fits into the same pattern.
The argument being made is not that the police are blameless. The argument is that responsibility appears to stop at the uniform. When things go wrong, officers are transferred or suspended to send a message. But when the violence is rooted in political rivalry, that message feels incomplete.
Within police ranks, there is also quiet concern about working conditions. Officers say they are expected to manage volatile political situations overnight, often with little room to push back against powerful interests. When things hold, they are invisible. When they collapse, they stand alone.
The Ballari episode has once again exposed this fault line.
For the government, the challenge is larger than one suspension or transfer. The real test is whether it is willing to publicly acknowledge political failures when law and order breaks down, instead of letting the system suggest that the police alone dropped the ball.
For now, what remains is a growing feeling across Karnataka that accountability is selective. And that whenever politics turns violent, the easiest answer is to change the officers, not the decisions that led to the violence in the first place.
