What's On My Mind: Social media theatreA weekly conversation on some topics that were on @HT_ED's mind.
Welcome to What's On My Mind Don’t recognize this sender? Unsubscribe with one click Sukumar Ranganathan recently imported your email address from another platform to Substack. You'll now receive their posts via email or the Substack app. To set up your profile and discover more on Substack, click here.
Good morning!The great game
Most modern dictionaries define shitposting as posting “something online (such as a comment, video, or meme) that is deliberately absurd, provocative, or offensive”. The idea is to get a rise, and, in the case of social media, generate engagement, responses and, thereby, revenue. Most dictionaries define foreign policy as a “government’s policy on dealing with other countries, for example in matters relating to trade or defence.” In an ideal world, there would be no intersection of the two, but as every day reminds us, this is not an ideal world — and modern diplomacy now has to deal with what can only be termed as shitposts (in addition to dealing with everything else it deals with). That isn’t the only change. The all pervasive nature of media means that it is no longer possible to separate political messaging meant for global audiences from those meant for local ones. Previously, the latter would be perused closely by interpreters (if in another language) and local diplomats, and diplomatic cables be sent on what this meant; now, everything happens in real time. It’s entirely possible that a junior minister’s indiscreet comment at an election rally in a remote corner of a country creates a diplomatic incident. What then, is the recommended playbook for diplomacy? One obvious tenet would be to be aware, but not react to everything (easier said than done given that there is an entire section of the media industry whose revenue model is built around throwaway statements and instant reactions), opting instead to respond carefully and strategically, and only when it becomes necessary to. Another is to be conscious of one’s own interests and positions (and clearly define red lines). And a third would be to ensure consistency of messaging — since it isn’t going to be possible to prevent people from speaking (or being heard), the least that can be done is to ensure that they all say the same thing. As India and the US move closer to a trade deal — the past 45 days have been rough — I am moving towards the minority view that, all things considered, New Delhi has made all the right moves (and also the right noises). On Wednesday, President Trump and Prime Minister Modi expressed confidence that a deal would be closed soon. And on Thursday, Sergio Gor, the US President’s nominee for ambassador to India, said “India is one of the most important relationships our nation has in the world…” and that the two countries are “not that far apart right now on a deal”. To be sure, there’s the overhang of the Russian oil issue, and while stopping purchases of this will not result in either a shortage of fuel or a price-spike, a sovereign nation should be free to exercise its choices. Diplomacy isn’t the only area seeing the lines between the virtual world and the real one blur. 2
Social media may not have birthed hate speech, but there is no doubt that it has normalised hate speech — making it easier to post and view extreme opinions. It is also increasingly becoming clear that it is very easy for online violence to spill over into the real world. The killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk is another instance of this The majority view is that the virtual world amplifies hate to such an extent that it translates into a real act of violence. That may be the case, but I think it does far worse. “I think many people have convinced themselves, at some level, that violence is virtual and that the dead either never lived in human form, or would respawn after their death, after taking the L for the day,” Graeme Wood wrote in The Atlantic in an article on political violence that was published the day after Kirk’s killing. That would suggest that the casual approach to violence online is now seeping into the real world. That’s bad news for everyone everywhere — including India where the divisions on social media are often sharper than those elsewhere. 3
“The revolution will be live”, Gil Scott-Heron wrote in 1971. “… On social media”, he may have added had he been around in the 2020s (he passed on in 2011). Nepal’s revolution did not play out on social media, though, for it was a ban on such platforms that triggered it, although the run-up to it, and the aftermath did. Most commentators have emphasised that the revolt is home-grown — counter-intuitive as this claim may be — and pointed to corruption and unemployment as the factors that forced young people onto the roads, and resulted in a regime change. Nepal’s problems may have been exacerbated by festering political instability (since 2008, no single party has won enough seats to form a majority government) and a depressed economy. The violence accompanying the uprising — widely touted as a Gen-Z protest — has already taken away some of the sheen, and the return of entrenched interests as stakeholders in the interim government still in the making (as this was being written) suggests that Nepal may be following the trajectory of Bangladesh. Whether this is because of lack of imagination, or lack of resources is not clear. Some people in India have sought to extrapolate happenings in Nepal with youth angst (or the lack of it) in India, but it makes little sense to compare the two countries. Nepal’s population is less than that of the greater National Capital Region of Delhi and its environs. Besides, as my colleague Roshan Kishore put it to me, India has a surfeit of safety valves. 4
Demography may be behind Nepal’s revolution — the median age of the country’s population is around 25 years, even lower than India’s 29 years. India is seeing significant demographic changes of its own. My colleague Abhishek Jha reported, on the basis of new government data released this week, that overall TFR (the total fertility rate) in India slipped to 1.9 (below the threshold of 2.1 which ensures a stable population level). The fall was on account of rural TFR falling to 2.1; urban TFR was down to 1.5. In a detailed analysis Abhishek pointed out that rural TFR was at 2.1 or lower across India except in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh , Rajasthan, and Jharkhand; and urban TFR was at 2.1 or lower in all states except Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. The race is on: will India become rich before it becomes old? 5
When India was still young — the early years and decades after independence — its cause was helped by institutions of the sort that no one would have expected a young country to possess. This week, I am reading The Maker of Filmmakers, a book on FTII and the man who made it what it is, Jagat Murari, written by his daughter Radha Chadha (one of my old columnists back when I was in Mint). There can be no doubt that FTII changed the face of Indian cinema, and likely birthed the industry we now know as Bollywood; this well-written book is the story behind FTII. Reading the book, I was reminded of Nikhil Menon’s Planning Democracy, on the early years of India’s Planning Commission. 6
Everyone ages. And everyone dies. This week, Rick Davies, co-founder of the British group Supertramp died (at the age of 81). Everyone (at least those of my generation) must have listened to Breakfast in America, the pop-rock masterpiece that many consider the group’s best album. I personally prefer the more prog-rock Crime of the Century; although, truth be told, this was a band that could pretty much play anything, and was likely evolving with the times. Crime… released in 1974 and Breakfast… in 1979. I’ve been listening to both this week. Till next week. Send in your bouquets and brickbats to sukumar.ranganathan@hindustantimes.com
|
