Lula da Silva has returned to power in Brazil once again, despite heavy intervention by US corporations and the Trump administration, which pushed for Flávio Bolsonaro. The fact is that the American backyard is turning ‘red’, but so will the intensity of US intervention. Following the regime-change operation in Venezuela, the US administration’s interventions in Colombia are well known. Lula’s victory offers a respite to all those who believe that a multipolar world needs to be developed and envisioned. BRICS can accelerate this process, even as we recognise that an equally powerful corporate lobby, particularly in the United States, will work overtime to create anarchy.
The social media tools and the subsequent ‘revolutions’ that we have witnessed across the globe have not necessarily paved the way for democratisation. Instead, they have led to greater control and created conditions for anarchy that can be exploited by the religious right. The capitalist West and the theocratic South have one common enemy: the rise of the ‘Red’, which remains one of the most powerful tools available to people on the margins. Efforts will be made to turn the voices of the marginalised into counter-revolutions in countries where Western capitalist interests are at stake. Hence, the so-called Gen Z ‘revolution’ is nothing but a major propaganda narrative shaped by Western corporate studios. Why are the protests in the streets of Paris, Brussels, Tirana, Milan and elsewhere not described as the Gen Z revolution? Why is immigration presented as a crisis, rather than racial discrimination and the lack of job opportunities for all?
Gen Z Protests, Regime Change and the Politics of Western Intervention
This is where I disagree with the argument that the student protests in Bangladesh or Nepal amounted to a ‘revolution’. The crisis runs much deeper and reflects the extent to which the deep state intervenes.
Now, we have been hearing a great deal about regime change in India. The media has been deliberately pushing this narrative. In this age of trying to remain in the news 24/7, people often speak without weighing their words. With so many YouTubers and other digital platforms available, and almost everyone holding a microphone, the crisis has become much more serious.
The first undemocratic attempt at regime change in India was, in my view, the one set in motion by Anna Hazare’s movement in 2011, followed by the subsequent anarchy in the aftermath of the Nirbhaya protests.
How BJP and Hindutva Groups Benefited from India’s Social Media Revolution
In India, the BJP and Hindutva groups were the primary beneficiaries of the social media ‘revolution’. They used the digital world to promote their nationalist agenda. Subsequently, intimidation and open threats became key tools for propagating that agenda. With a huge population of unemployed young people, YouTube and the digital world were presented as offering enormous employment opportunities. From the gullies and mohallas onwards, people are making reels and promoting them. Narendra Modi himself has said on several occasions that reels are creating ‘jobs’.
I have been on social media since its early days, particularly on Facebook and X, but I have not managed to do much with these platforms. Of course, I never opted for their business model. My aim was primarily to interact with friends and others interested in reasonable discussions without resorting to abuse. However, my world on these platforms remains very limited.
What I am saying is that those who have gained enormously in terms of viewership and reach are not necessarily providing the best content. These are still corporate games, and you have to fit into their system to make yourself visible. Those who do not play by these rules remain confined to their own little worlds.
The problem with this phenomenon is the need to ‘look’ different. You have to be seen in ‘action’. As a result, people being hit by the police, police personnel being attacked, lathi charges and the pushing around of leaders all become major sources of TRPs for television channels.
YouTube Algorithms, Political Influencers and the Crisis of Digital Democracy
Over the last few years, if you survey YouTube experts, their taglines and content revolve around Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi, the RSS, the BJP, the Congress and similar political subjects. This means that if you want to discuss anything beyond these subjects, or without mentioning them, you are unlikely to gain much traction in the ‘mainstream’ digital world.
Many of us felt that the digital world had ‘decolonised’ and, in Indian terms, ‘de-Brahmanised’ the knowledge system. But the fact is that it appears to have managed only the smaller contradictions within that system. Those who never found a place in India’s Brahmanical mainstream found solace by creating their own ‘digital worlds’. As a result, everyone has a particular focus, and there is little room for a diversity of issues on individual channels.
You have to introduce the right ‘keyword’ into your discussions. That is why the new systems of algorithms and reach do not allow you to develop broader, more balanced and meaningful discussions. You have to create a sensation and remain fixated on a particular theme.
It is this obsession with sensationalism that has turned people into objects, performing actions that can attract more likes and, consequently, more money. I have seen young people in our villages glued to their mobile phones, watching reels and creating their own. If this is what we call employment generation, I am afraid things will become difficult in the coming days.
I was wondering why we do not see large student protests in states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Does this mean that young people are happy and that there is no employment crisis or educational crisis? The more I reflect on this, the more I feel that, to some extent, the answer may lie in the fact that young people have become deeply immersed in the digital world and believe that there is money to be made there.
There was a time when student protests emerged from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Gujarat. Today, however, there is a comfortable silence almost everywhere. Have young people become disconnected from the issues being highlighted in the media? Or have these ‘nationalised’ versions of protests, emerging from the national capital and a few other cities, failed to connect with the needs and demands of young people elsewhere? Are these protests confined to those directly affected, while people in other parts of the country continue to believe that things will somehow work themselves out?
Everyone searches for their own space during such events. Some become heroes, while others are left to complain. The media turns individuals into brands, and those who receive this attention begin to feel important. Jantar Mantar can turn you into a ‘national icon’.
Neha Bora, Student Activism and the Media’s Obsession with Political Icons
We all know that these protests have largely been driven by left-wing student groups and unions. Anyone emerging from a Left, Ambedkarite or Periyarist circle is likely to be a much better speaker on current affairs, social problems and international issues than many of their contemporaries. Neha Bora and others emerged from AISA, and it is therefore natural that they speak in this manner.
Many activists can speak the language of political and social analysis. But once the media finds a star, it will continue to focus on that person, scrutinise every word, probe their personal lives and question their family members. Through this relentless attention, it may also attempt to control them.
The credibility of what I would call the ‘Bania-Brahmin media’ has been completely destroyed by the excessive loyalty of its employees to those in power. Most of them are neither journalists in the true sense nor experts. Their positions and visibility are often determined by their loyalty to a political party. Prime-time television shows can turn people into ‘experts’, even though the quality of the debates is often at gutter level. These programmes are more interested in creating chaos and confusion and then blaming the government’s opponents.
For these media outlets, even asking questions can become unacceptable. Many survive on government funding and corporate patronage. Their aim is to protect corporate interests and create confusion. While young icons may get carried away and say anything to remain in the news, media commentators wait for them to make a mistake so that they can dissect it during prime time. Everyone else becomes a cheerleader.
We need to break out of this syndrome. It is heartening to see those who are fighting for democratic rights, and they deserve our support. But we must all be careful, particularly those who are now in the public domain. We must know when to speak, what to say and how to present our arguments with sound reasoning.
It is equally important to know whom you are speaking to and understand their track record. Otherwise, every sentence you utter can be taken out of context and misused to discredit a democratic struggle.
Be careful.
