No, no, but why don’t you speak up?

In expressing partisan opinion online, what if you fall somewhere between ‘whataboutery’ and ‘what goes of my daddy’s?’

The unintended tragedy of an active life on the Internet—expressing oneself non-stop, which is already outpacing real life—is that by temporarily withdrawing from your private self you have chosen to become a public figure. 

You do the same things, such as making public declarations, even addressing the nation on important days. And must be held to the same standards that actual celebrities do. Only that celebrities make crores from public presence; earning tonnes of conditional love in return. You only receive the flip side of holding an opinion. Which is?

Dealing with an insane barrage of character assassinations, and counter-questions, along predictable lines, “But, who are you to… What about… Where were you when…” Even the Sikh Gulzar, mistaken by the unlettered as Muslim, and Amartya Sen, perceived as unlettered instead, haven’t been spared on social media. 

And so you go: “Screw it, what goes of my daddy’s (mere baap ka kya jaata hai)”, and back to scrolling food/cat/semi-nudes on Insta/YouTube. Unless imagined generations before you are under direct attack. Or you are, yourself—whether socially, even economically. 

And the whole world feels like a khap panchayat, doling out faux judgements. In which case, what choice do you have, but to speak for yourself. 

This is when silence from the like-minded hurts most. You rightly seek ‘allyship’ (that’s dictionary.com’s word for the year, 2021). Feel let down further, when purported allies indulge in both-sideism still, when everything doesn’t have two sides. Hate speech, classified as exhortation to violence, doesn’t. Neither do unfair laws, and so much else. Many do speak up, constantly, saying the same things all day. 

A lot of them are well-meaning, activists, risking possible harassment, even from the state. This is no more zero-stake virtue signalling. There is freedom of speech, as Idi Amin said—not necessarily freedom after speech. 

Left exposed, over issues that aren’t personal, these activists, professional or amateur, scream the loudest, over why everyone’s gone quiet instead! There is safety and merit in an opinion spreading among larger numbers after all. 

The only issue with some activists, at least among friends I know, is that they anoint themselves to be sole repositories of good faith; all else being sell-outs in their eyes. Their purity test will hardly win friends and influence people, when most are perhaps self-centred fence-sitters, minding their own precious business. As they always will.  

Politicians are more persuasive in that regard. More so those in power. They command a flock of cronies over spoils to distribute. It’s impossible to match such opportunistic commitment. They’re frickin’ at it, every moment. It’s a job. Which is why, best to mute such social media handles/profiles engaged in this ‘spoils system’. Unless you like visiting people at their workplace. 

How do you get rid of politicians who get your goat? They can only be beaten on the day of an election, which is what some believe democracy solely is. Winner takes all. Every adult gets an equal vote.  

Otherwise, like absolute human equality is a social mirage, all speech ain’t equal. Some are more equal than others. Measurable online by the size of your following. Or the R-naught of your potentially viral tweet, for it to infect beyond immediate acquaintances, through community transmission, as it were. 

What variant usually spreads fastest? As per algorithms, opinions tagged to the outlandish/extremes; for, against. There is incentive, therefore, by way of dopamine hits for online likes/shares, to deal in extremities alone; whether Trump or KRK, neither is a fluke.

You sense that, foremost, among Indians on social media over matters of rights for religious minorities. Not that these things are dictated by logic, but Indians by default ought to be most sensitive about any kinda discrimination and insult/abuse on religious lines. Overwhelming majority (80 per cent) of them are Hindus, who would be a minority, in every part of the world, besides Nepal! 

As it is, minority-majority, let alone Hindu-Muslim, isn’t a permanent construct. Every majority is a minority elsewhere. It’s plain self-preservation as a collective human instinct to side against marginalisation. But that kinda boring speech, it appears, doesn’t travel. Dealing in entertaining, woke-bhakt binaries, going back in history, does—and how far back in history does one go?

Even if one acknowledges that the political conflict online isn’t always between fact and fiction (although a lot of it is). From either end, it is also about a set of facts, versus a bunch of other facts. Forming two factions, if you may! Where do those, standing on neither pole, go? 

Quiet. Naturally. Protecting their izzat. Saving their skin, among those with too much skin in the game. Avoiding a mud-fight. Calming their nerves. Evading conflict. Being apolitical on partisan lines is also a political choice. Listing that in their dating app bio. Knowing their limits to influence anyway. 

I see them all around. I know they care. Getting told their silence is complicity. Forget about why they don’t speak up, I wonder more about Regular Rameshes who do—why do they? Only one explanation: doing that makes them feel honourable about themselves. Yup, feel honourable; gotta be a good feeling. 

Mayank Shekhar attempts to make sense of mass culture. He tweets @mayankw14
Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
The views expressed in this column are the individual’s and don’t represent those of the paper.

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!