top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Algorithmic Anarchy

The NEET paper leak protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar should have remained a legitimate expression of student anger over the collapse of examination integrity. Instead, as the agitation escalated into clashes with the police, abusive sloganeering and an increasingly radical political campaign, Meta’s algorithms emerged as an invisible force multiplying the unrest. The controversy surrounding the brief removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message to the youth in the aftermath of the...

Algorithmic Anarchy

The NEET paper leak protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar should have remained a legitimate expression of student anger over the collapse of examination integrity. Instead, as the agitation escalated into clashes with the police, abusive sloganeering and an increasingly radical political campaign, Meta’s algorithms emerged as an invisible force multiplying the unrest. The controversy surrounding the brief removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message to the youth in the aftermath of the protests only reinforces that concern. Meta has attributed the takedown to a “technical glitch” and apologised. But when the world’s largest social media platform can temporarily suppress the message of the elected leader of the world’s largest democracy during a politically charged moments, the issue extends well beyond a single deleted post. Who decides what India sees? That question has become impossible to ignore during the Cockroach Janta Party’s protests. Across Instagram and Facebook, users have reported being inundated with CJP videos, reels and protest clips despite never following the organisation or engaging with similar political content. Whether this resulted from coordinated paid collaborations, recommendation algorithms or both deserves a thorough investigation. But the larger democratic concern is that public opinion is increasingly being mediated not by citizens, journalists or elected representatives, but by opaque algorithms designed in Silicon Valley and optimised for engagement rather than democratic responsibility. Meta’s recommendation engine is not a passive notice board. Every piece of political content that reaches millions has first been selected by an algorithm whose workings remain largely hidden from public scrutiny. This is hardly unique to India. Around the world, Meta has repeatedly been accused of amplifying polarisation, misinformation and political extremism because outrage keeps users engaged. From elections to ethnic conflicts and episodes of civil unrest, the company has faced persistent criticism that its commercial incentives reward divisive content over balanced discourse. Democracies cannot afford to outsource the architecture of public debate to corporations whose primary obligation is to shareholders rather than constitutional values. While citizens are entitled to challenge governments and demand accountability, there is an important distinction between a movement that expands because people are persuaded and one that appears to be algorithmically amplified into omnipresence. Equally disturbing has been the normalisation of abusive political language during the protests. When such content is repeatedly amplified through recommendation systems, platforms cease to be neutral intermediaries and become active participants in degrading democratic discourse. Platforms that influence elections, protests and public opinion must explain how political recommendations are generated and why particular narratives receive extraordinary amplification. Silicon Valley companies insist they are merely technology platforms. But their algorithms increasingly exercise editorial power. When software determines which protests dominate national conversations and whose voices disappear, technology has already become politics.

Vijay Whistles Beyond the Dravidian Divide

The stunning victory of Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (), contesting its first Assembly election and emerging as the single-largest party with 108 seats, has fundamentally altered the grammar of the state politics. For the first time since 1967, neither the DMK nor the AIADMK stands at the centre of power with unquestioned authority. A political order that survived ideological battles, personality cults, corruption scandals, coalition compulsions and generational transitions has suddenly encountered a challenger who bypassed traditional political apprenticeship altogether.


The comparisons with M.G. Ramachandran are inevitable. But the contexts are vastly different. When MGR stormed to power in 1977, Tamil Nadu was poorer, slower, less connected and far more dependent on charismatic leadership and mass appeal. Vijay’s rise has occurred in a digitally saturated, politically impatient and aspirational Tamil Nadu where young voters consume politics through Instagram reels, YouTube clips and cinematic symbolism as much as through party manifestos.


Dravidian Mutation

The most striking feature of Vijay’s success is that he did not reject Dravidian politics. He repackaged it.  For years, analysts assumed that the next disruption in TN would come either from Hindutva nationalism or from an anti-Dravidian cultural backlash. Neither materialised. Instead, Vijay carefully operated within the emotional and ideological contours familiar to Tamil voters.


He invoked Periyar, praised C.N. Annadurai, respected MGR, avoided direct attacks on Karunanidhi and Jayalalithaa, and repeatedly reaffirmed commitments to social justice, state autonomy and Tamil identity.


The electorate appears to have discarded not the Dravidian philosophy itself, but the fatigue, dynastic excesses and corruption associated with its principal custodians. Voters still appear deeply attached to welfare politics, linguistic pride and secular social coalitions. What they rejected was complacency.


This explains why Vijay’s manifesto sounded remarkably familiar. Monthly financial assistance for women, unemployment aid for graduates, free LPG cylinders, crop-loan waivers and symbolic welfare gestures echoed the welfare architecture perfected by Jayalalithaa and refined by the DMK.


Even his rhetorical framing through aram (virtue), porul (material well-being), and inbam (joy or emotional fulfilment) echoed the deeply emotive cultural vocabulary long associated with M. Karunanidhi.  The lesson from this election is unmistakable: Tamil Nadu remains ideologically Dravidian, but no longer emotionally loyal to the traditional Dravidian parties.


Youth Surge

TVK’s rise was also powered by an extraordinary generational shift. The average age of its organisational network was reportedly under 40. Its candidates were largely first-timers. Many emerged from Vijay’s fan-club ecosystem, which had evolved over decades from cinema celebration units into disciplined neighbourhood-level social-service structures.


The transformation of the Vijay Makkal Iyakkam into a political machine may eventually become a case study in political mobilisation. Nearly 15 million members spread across around 85,000 fan clubs gave TVK something even established parties struggle to build: emotional loyalty fused with booth-level penetration.


Importantly, these cadres did not carry the baggage of conventional politics. They were seen as accessible, recognisable and relatively untainted. In constituency after constituency, veteran politicians were defeated by political novices whose primary qualification was proximity to Vijay’s movement. In Katpadi, senior DMK leader Durai Murugan lost. In Madurai Central, former minister P.T.R. Palanivel Thiagarajan was defeated. Such outcomes indicate not merely anti-incumbency but active voter experimentation.


A generation raised amid social media spectacle and rapid-consumption politics appeared drawn to Vijay’s outsider image. To many voters, especially urban and semi-urban youth, he represented speed, and emotional authenticity in contrast to the procedural, often weary style of traditional Dravidian politics. 


The immediate challenge before Vijay is arithmetic.  With 108 seats, TVK is still short of the halfway mark. An alliance with smaller DMK partners appears mathematically possible. Congress and Left parties may find tactical reasons to support TVK.


A broader understanding with the DMK itself remains politically plausible but emotionally difficult. Vijay built his campaign by directly targeting the DMK’s alleged corruption and dynastic politics. A sudden embrace may damage his carefully cultivated outsider credibility. An arrangement with the AIADMK appears even more unlikely as TVK has repeatedly described the BJP as its ideological adversary.


Beyond coalition politics lies an even greater challenge: governance. Welfare-heavy manifestos require sustained revenue generation, administrative discipline and political prioritisation. Tamil Nadu already carries significant welfare commitments. Expanding them dramatically will test TVK’s economic realism.


MGR had decades of organisational experience within the DMK before forming AIADMK. Vijay does not possess that political apprenticeship. Running a state requires more than crowd mobilisation and moral messaging.


This election has also delivered sobering lessons to the established parties. The DMK discovered that welfare schemes alone cannot compensate for perceptions of corruption and dynastic concentration. The AIADMK learned that organisational survival without ideological clarity leads to political drift. Most importantly, Tamil Nadu voters demonstrated a willingness to break psychological barriers once considered permanent.


(The writer is a retired banker and author. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page