top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Red Romance

For long, the Naxalite in news was recognisable by the gun. But the more insidious version of Naxalism has never needed a rifle. It has thrived in varsity classrooms and newspaper and magazine columns, fostered by men and women sympathetic to it. These academics and other members of the so-called intelligentsia have long enjoyed their status as ‘respectable dissenters’ even when their politics offered intellectual alibis for Naxals carrying guns. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent...

Red Romance

For long, the Naxalite in news was recognisable by the gun. But the more insidious version of Naxalism has never needed a rifle. It has thrived in varsity classrooms and newspaper and magazine columns, fostered by men and women sympathetic to it. These academics and other members of the so-called intelligentsia have long enjoyed their status as ‘respectable dissenters’ even when their politics offered intellectual alibis for Naxals carrying guns. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent Independence Day warning about “dimaagi Naxals” should therefore not be dismissed as another political label. His larger point was that an insurgency does not survive on ammunition alone. It survives on ideas and people willing to make violence appear morally fashionable. The most revealing feature of India’s Maoist movement was never simply its brutality. It was the strange attraction it exercised over sections of the metropolitan Left elite. The Naxalite with an AK-47 could be transformed into a romantic revolutionary while the policeman he killed became an instrument of an oppressive state. This was not merely naïveté. At its ugliest, it was the intellectual laundering of political violence. The fantasy of the romantic revolutionary has always been seductive. In this narrative, amplified through sympathetic media priding itself on telling ‘truth to power,’ India was not a constitutional democracy struggling with inequality and corruption but an inherently illegitimate state waiting to be overthrown. In the minds of this elite Left, Maoist violence has often been recast as resistance while attacks on infrastructure as blows against capitalism. The armed overthrow of the Indian republic was the liberation they craved for. Some of India’s most celebrated intellectuals have flirted dangerously close to that moral inversion. The issue here is whether intellectual prestige can be used to sanitise an ideology whose practitioners have murdered civilians, policemen and public servants and terrorised some of India’s poorest districts. A university cannot be the place where Maoist romanticism acquires the legitimacy of a fashionable campus cause. Professors who turn armed insurgents into heroic revolutionaries are not merely exercising academic freedom. If they knowingly excuse violence, they are helping to construct the moral vocabulary that makes violence possible. Let’s be clear here. A professor who criticises the Indian state is not a Naxal while a journalist who exposes state excesses is not an enemy of India. But an intellectual who repeatedly excuses, glorifies or rationalises political violence cannot hide behind the word ‘dissent.’ India has paid an enormous price for the Maoist fantasy. Thousands have died. Entire regions were held back by fear while development was obstructed. The people supposedly being liberated were often the first to suffer. The armed Naxal is now being pushed towards extinction. But the Indian republic cannot afford to leave behind the romantic mythology that made the gun respectable. A democracy can tolerate dissent. It should never be expected to tolerate the glorification of those who seek its violent destruction.

How Social Media Is Hijacking Public Discourse in Maharashtra

Updated: Jan 6, 2025

A culture of distraction and defamation on social media presently threatens to divert public focus from social injustices roiling the state.

Hijacking Public Discourse in Maharashtra

As 2025 dawns with celebrations across India, Maharashtra finds itself entangled in a vortex of tragedy, controversy and misdirected attention. In a state where New Year revelry collides with a charged political and cultural ecosystem, the disturbing custodial death of a young protester and the brutal murder of a village sarpanch have shaken the conscience of its citizens. Yet, instead of galvanizing action or fostering serious debate, these crises are overshadowed by a toxic cocktail of social media-fuelled distractions and character assassinations.


The death of Somnath Vyankat Suryawanshi, a young man arrested for his alleged involvement in protests over the desecration of a Constitution replica, has cast a very dark stain on the state’s social fabric. Reports of torture while in custody have sparked outrage, with demands for strict accountability. Suryawanshi’s tragic end is emblematic of a justice system that fails to safeguard the fundamental rights of its citizens, even in custody. Such incidents demand a collective outcry and an unwavering pursuit of justice. Yet, the public narrative seems to have drifted far from these urgent issues.


Adding to this morbid tally is the brutal murder of Santosh Deshmukh, sarpanch of Massajog village in Beed. The crime has sent shockwaves through the state, with allegations implicating individuals close to Cabinet Minister Dhananjay Munde. While Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has assured swift action, the shadow of political patronage looms large, threatening to stymie the pursuit of justice. At a time when Maharashtra should unite to demand answers, it is instead witnessing a disturbing shift in focus from accountability to sensationalism.


This shift found its most bizarre expression in the controversy surrounding BJP MLA Suresh Dhas, who, while addressing the Deshmukh murder, made a comment about actress Prajakta Mali. His insinuation, linking Mali to a political figure in the ruling Mahayuti, unleashed a torrent of defamatory remarks on social media. What should have remained a moment of solidarity for justice became a distraction fuelled by misogyny and voyeurism.


Mali fought back, publicly condemning the baseless allegations. The Maharashtra State Commission for Women acted swiftly, directing the Mumbai Police to investigate. But her experience is a grim reminder of the disproportionate scrutiny and objectification women in public life endure. Whether actresses, activists or ordinary citizens, social media’s tendency to sensationalize erodes dignity and shifts attention from pressing matters.


The online realm’s penchant for character assassination found another prey in the person of Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan, who recently found himself in the crosshairs of partisan fury for praising Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s WAVES (World Audio Visual Entertainment Summit) initiative. While his remarks were lauded by some, others unleashed vitriol, accusing him of political opportunism. The backlash was a stark illustration of how social media punishes dissent and diversity of thought, even among cultural icons. WAVES, a promising initiative to showcase India’s creative potential on a global stage, became yet another casualty of political polarization and online toxicity.


The tragic case of Suryawanshi, the Beed sarpanch’s murder and the manufactured controversies surrounding Prajakta Mali and Shahrukh Khan underscore a fundamental malaise in Maharashtra’s public discourse - the hijacking of critical conversations by social media sensationalism. The tools that once promised to democratize information have become platforms for misinformation, distraction and defamation.


The larger question is why such distractions find fertile ground in Maharashtra today. Is it merely the allure of sensationalism? Or does it reflect a deeper societal unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths? Justice for Suryawanshi and Deshmukh demands courage to challenge entrenched power structures, to question political allegiances and to hold institutions accountable. Yet, courage is in short supply when public focus is fragmented by orchestrated outrage and digital mudslinging.


To reclaim the narrative, Maharashtra must reassert its priorities. The state must ensure justice for Suryawanshi and Deshmukh, regardless of political affiliations. Any delays or compromises will erode public trust in the judiciary and law enforcement. Secondly, the misuse of social media to derail conversations must be confronted head-on. Tech companies, regulators and civil society must collaborate to counter misinformation and hold individuals accountable for defamatory content.


Equally crucial is fostering a culture of respect and integrity in online interactions. The internet, while an indispensable tool for advocacy and awareness, should not become a breeding ground for hate and distraction. Public figures—from politicians to actors—deserve the freedom to express their views without fear of character assassination.


As we enter 2025, Maharashtra faces a pivotal moment. Will it succumb to the chaos of distractions, or will it rise above to address its most pressing challenges?


The state’s future hinges on its ability to prioritize justice over sensationalism, truth over misdirection, and unity over division. In doing so, Maharashtra could set a powerful example for a nation increasingly torn between the promise of progress and the perils of polarization. Let the New Year’s resolution be clear: to champion justice, uphold respect and resist the siren call of social media’s darker instincts.


(The author is a political observer. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page