Agrawal 1

Tanmay Agrawal

Professor Pete Figler

ENGL 109H

30 April 2021

The Social Media for Autocrats.

In recent years, social media platforms have come under major public scrutiny for the

invasive techniques that they employ in order to collect user data for the purpose of increasing

their revenue and user engagement. As Tristan Harris (an ex-Google employee) from

documentary The Social Dilemma, which discusses how social media algorithms have led to

polarizing the society, notes, there has been an increasingly strong correlation between social

media companies using invasive engagement techniques and widespread socio political

polarization around the world. Through this essay, I attempt to assert, using evidence and

observations, how social media has been used by many ill-willed individuals to weaken the

social and democratic fabric in India, and using India as the central case, inductively argue that

this phenomenon can be observed across the world.

India is one of the most diverse countries in the world, home to over seven major

religions, twenty-three constitutionally recognized languages, and more than two thousand

known ethnic groups. The Indian National Anthem, “Jana Gana Mana”, celebrates India as a

union of all provinces, languages and religions (Mitra, Anirban). For a country as diverse as

India, responsible political discourse is extremely quintessential, as people cling strongly to their

cultural values and do not want them to be disrespected. Prior to independence from the British

rule in 1947, India consisted of what we know today as modern-day India, Pakistan and
 Agrawal 2

Bangladesh. Under the British Raj, a common political technique, known as Divide and Rule,

was practised which promoted policies that increased animosity between the two largest religious

groups in India- Hindus and Muslims; the policy was used to ensure the prevention of a united

national resistance and was successful until the Gandhian-era, which is known for nationwide

freedom struggles under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, began.

The Divide and Rule policy led to the formation of the Muslim League, led by

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, which demanded a separate nation for the Muslim population. This idea

faced resistance from leading Indian freedom revolutionaries, including Mahatma Gandhi,

Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, but they eventually had to give in to stop the violence that

ensued in 1946, when British declared that they would soon be exiting India. This led to the

formation of India and Pakistan (consisting of modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh). Although

Pakistan decided to run a state on religious lines, India went on to become a Hindu-majority, but

secular country. Despite the partition, 15% of Indians still recognize as Muslims, making India

the country with third-largest Muslim population in terms of numbers. The partition, however,

left some permanent bitterness among the two religious groups, leaving a sense of perpetual

tense peace.

Post-Independence, for most of the years until 2014, India was ruled by the Indian

National Congress Party, which had its roots in the Indian Freedom Movement. However, with

increasing allegations of corruption and misuse of power, their public popularity had reached an

all-time low, paving way for the BJP. The Bharatiya Janata Party (abbreviation: BJP), translated

in English as “Indian People’s Party,” was a strong opponent to the Congress establishment.

They had previously been in power for a few years under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee,

a prime minister who is well admired by many Indians. The BJP believes in the idea of
 Agrawal 3

Hindutva, which basically believes that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life, and shall

therefore be followed by anyone who lives in the Indian subcontinent. They have been known for

what they call the “Ayodhya Movement”, in which a historical mosque was vandalized and

destroyed by a mob of Hindu Nationalists under the pretext that it was built upon the birthplace

of Rama, a well-respected figure in Hindu traditions.

The BJP won the elections in a landslide victory in 2014 under the leadership of

Narendra Modi. Modi portrayed himself as a technocrat who promised to end corruption and

bring in an efficient government. However, once in power, Modi started avoiding traditional

media outlets and rather resorted to social media to convey himself to the public. The United

States had seen a similar phenomenon recently under Donald Trump. However, unlike Trump,

Modi resisted from directly criticizing the media or conveying polarizing thoughts. Instead, his

party aides would promote polarizing ideas on social media, henceforth immunizing him from

any accountability for his policies and actions (The Wire Analysis). For example, when the

COVID-19 pandemic began, high-profile leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party posted tweets

that exploited the news of a COVID-19 cluster being found at a mosque to spread religious

disharmony. One such tweet, by Amit Malviya, the president of the IT Cell of the party, said

“Delhi’s dark underbelly is exploding! Last 3 months have seen an Islamic insurrection of sorts,

first in the name of anti-CAA protests from Shaheen Bagh to Jamia, Jaffrabad to Seemlapur. And

now the illegal gathering of the radical Tablighi Jamaat at the markaz. It needs a fix!” (Yadav,

Jyoti).

Privatized media is a relatively young industry in India, which only started gaining

ground post 1991, when the Indian Government came up with a New Economic Policy

promoting mass privatization. This put the media houses at a vulnerable position in 2014. Given
 Agrawal 4

the mass popularity of the Prime Minister, they felt increasingly threatened by Social Media. In

order to mitigate the threat, the media started censoring itself in order to avoid scrutiny by the

establishment. With time, this self-censorship broadened to full-blown propaganda. TV debate

show hosts shout loudly at people with viewpoints that oppose the establishment, call them

names and start media trials that basically beforehand declare a defendant guilty while a

courtroom trial is being held, and follow this with conspiracy theories in attempt to defame the

“guilty”. Sensitive issues such as religion, caste, and race are dragged into these conversations

which overall result in an extremely toxic reality show being broadcasted in the name of news

(Ninan, Sevanti). A Debate from Republic TV cited in this article provides a great example of

how Media Houses in India operate nowadays (Tw: abusive content) (Goswami, Arnab). The

impact of social media has clearly now permeated beyond the social media platforms themselves,

making anyone, regardless of whether one has a social media presence, a stakeholder in the

events unfolding in these platforms.

Social Media has become an increasingly cheap and powerful tool to grab the attention of

the masses. As Zahed Amanullah, a counter-terrorism expert at The Institute for Strategic

Dialogue observed, a contribution worth $10,000 in ad credits from Facebook for an anti-

extremism campaign was able to reach out to over two-thirds of Kenya’s population. This might

be good news for Zahed’s campaign; but what he also pointed out was that such cheap

campaigns, which have the ability to reach out to such a wide audience, could also be run by

extremist groups in order to promote their ideas (Harris, Tristan). Although the ability to grab

the attention of an entire nation for the price of a used car is quite empowering for the common

man, it is also an extremely useful tool for those who want to wreak havoc or spread undesirable

ideas.
 Agrawal 5

The ruling BJP has an IT department which is known for spreading fake news and

misinformation on the internet that later becomes endemic on social media as well as WhatsApp

groups across the country (Yadav, Jyoti). Many a times, the Prime Minister’s Twitter handle has

followed random pro-establishment trolls, raising doubts whether the spread of misinformation is

limited to a few official sources or an underground operation initiated by the party to increase

their ‘felt’ support on these platforms; upon being questioned on the former, the Prime Minister

conveniently distances himself by assuring that he would look into the situation but it hardly

results in any action taken. In 2017, when a journalist known for being critical of Modi’s Hindu

Nationalist politics was shot dead by recent Hindu Nationalists, Nikhil Dhadhich, a Surat-based

businessman who is followed by Modi wrote a tweet, which can be roughly translated as "A

bitch died a dog's death and all of her litter is crying in the same voice.” The tweet was later

deleted after a social media outcry. Modi is known to follow many such miscreants, many of

whom don’t happen to be known public-figures (Pandey, Geeta).

As we can see, social media has been exploited in multiple ways by a government with

seemingly autocratic intentions. Social media platforms such as Twitter are generally unwilling

to take action fearing repercussions from the government. There is little enforcement of Twitter’s

policies here in India, and with the lack of any public or responsible institutional oversight, they

hardly have any incentive to do so. While Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, has publicly

embraced a tough stance against hate speech (Frier, Sarah & Wagner, Kurt), there does not seem

to be a willingness to actually take any action unless there’s a public outcry to do so. While the

Western World is observing some improvement in hate-speech monitoring on social media

platforms such as Twitter, the situation largely remains unchanged in India and, I believe, in

many other parts of the world.

 Agrawal 6

As I’m writing this essay, India is facing a brutal second wave of the coronavirus

pandemic, with over 350,000 cases being reported on a daily basis, 300,000 more than the

second worst-hit country in the world. The government had recently passed a controversial law

which allowed them to exercise more control over social media platforms. Naturally, after the

second wave, the establishment faced criticism for their handling of the pandemic and holding

political rallies while patients are gasping for oxygen, medications and beds. Recently, the Modi

Government sent a letter to Twitter ordering them to take down certain tweets in India under the

false pretext of spreading misinformation. One such tweet (posted on April 17th) by a Member

of Parliament from the opposition simply said, “India recording over 2 lakh (200,000) cases

everyday, shortage of medicines, increasing number of deaths…..healthcare system is

collapsing…! #ModiMadeDisaster.” All the information presented can be publicly verified to be

true (Channel4).

While I’ve mentioned how social media has been essentially used as a tool to weaken key

democratic institutions in the world’s largest democracy, it should also be noted that thanks to

social media, there still exists some responsible journalism in the country, which still holds the

establishment responsible for its actions.

India has learnt an important lesson. Democracy is not a given. If not preserved, it can be

destroyed within a short period of time. While India undergoes a tough time and (hopefully soon)

builds back the compromised democratic institutions, the rest of the world needs to think. Social

Media can either lead to an unimaginable strengthening of the democratic institutions, or a

spectacular collapse.
 Agrawal 7

While India reels through the implications of unchecked exploitation of social media, it

presents an urgent question to the rest of the world: If the same tool can essentially empower the

common man in ways that were previously unimaginable, but also at the same time damage the

social fabric and help promote extremist ideas among the greater public, which action is the

correct action? Shall one allow the government to moderate the discourse on social media, just to

let this power be exploited by a future wannabe autocrat? Or shall one allow anyone to speak

what they wish, just to let extremist ideas become the new normal? It’s a complex question, but

there’s an urgency to reach an amicable solution.

Works Cited

1. Orlowski, Jeff. “The Social Dilemma”, starring Tristan Harris. Netflix, January 26, 2020

2. Mitra, Anirban. “How – and Why – 'Jana Gana Mana' Became India's National Anthem”.

The Wire, August 15, 2020. https://thewire.in/history/independence-day-national-

anthem-jana-gana-mana-subhash-chandra-bose-netaji
 Agrawal 8

3. The Wire Analysis. “'Thinking of Giving Up': How Narendra Modi Has Used Social

Media to Fuel His Politics”. The Wire, March 3, 2020.

https://thewire.in/politics/narendra-modi-social-media-account

4. Goswami, Arnab. “#BengalCoalScam: Biggest Investigation Ahead Of Elections | The

Debate With Arnab Goswami”. Republic World, March 15, 2021,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TO6eCFvV3E

5. Ninan, Sevanti. “How India’s Media Landscape Changed over Five Years”. The India

Forum, June 7, 2019, https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/how-indias-media-landscape-

changed-over-five-years

6. Harris, Tristan and Raskin, Aza. “Your Nation’s Attention for the Price of a Used Car”.

Your Undivided Attention from Center for Humane Technology, October 6, 2020.

https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/25-your-nations-attention-for-the-price-of-a-used-

car

7. Yadav, Jyoti. “Indians are fighting against coronavirus and BJP IT cell is fighting against

Indians”. ThePrint, April 4, 2020.

https://theprint.in/opinion/pov/indians-are-fighting-against-coronavirus-and-bjp-

it-cell-is-fighting-against-indians/395058/

8. Pandey, Geeta. “Why does Indian PM Narendra Modi follow trolls on Twitter?”. BBC

News, October 10, 2017.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-41549756

9. Channel4 World News. “Countries send aid as India sets new Covid record for fourth day

in row”. YouTube, April 25, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hepBWMsm4VY

 Agrawal 9

10. Frier, Sarah & Wagner, Kurt. “Jack Dorsey Criticizes Zuckerberg Over His Free-Speech

Argument”. Bloomberg, October 25, 2019.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-24/dorsey-criticizes-zuckerberg-

over-free-speech-argument