Tie’em up in the trivial

India’s noisy politics is caught in the throes of ‘manufactured outrage’. This does not add to the vibrancy of the “world’s largest democracy” or to the civilisational land of the “argumentative Indian”, but towards deflection and stunting of vital debate and questioning.

A shrill battle to assume the moral high ground by diminishing the opposition or contrarian expression with false righteousness or by ascribing malintent is afoot. Besides being beholden to, or wary of repercussions from, the powers-that-be, most media platforms have become willing partners in dialling up the volume on the trivial and the inconsequential to fan manufactured outrage. That doing so bumps up TRP ratings also helps. The noisier and nastier the accusations of being ‘anti-Indian’ against anyone dissenting, the better.

Instead of discussing issues like Chinese expansionism, agrarian distress, unemployment, inflation, the return of black money and economic fugitives from abroad, etc., the headlines are swamped with the colour of a dress of an actor, some ‘cultural’ issue with an advertisement, or on the semantical inelegance of the word ‘pitai’! The substantive is readily sacrificed for the peripheral, and the casualty is always that which is essential. In dire socio-economic and deeply polarised times like these, it is pathetic to get caught up in manufactured outrage even if there is occasionally an element of inelegance in an expression used by someone.

Read | Leave Bollywood alone

With ‘IT Cells’ and troll factories massaging deliberate narratives with even more falsehood and innuendo on social media, manufactured outrage acquires an emotional wave that can obfuscate critical debate and questioning.

Goebbelisian propaganda has been elevated to a fine art that is sanctioned and sanctified by the highest offices with a combination of repetition, telling silences, dog-whistling, mealy-mouthed justifications, and above all, by not calling out or punishing the person who is pretending to be outraged.

The formula is simple. Cherry-pick a word or a statement that has either not been heard or found to be objectionable hitherto; creatively attach vile suppositions to give it dark intent; and scratch that manufactured ‘objectionable’ itch ad nauseum till it acquires widespread resonance and reaction. The favourite corners to box an argument into manufactured outrage are the supposed affronts to nationalism, majoritarian pride, and the imperfect past. The decibel levels, gravity of accusations, and the intensity of faux outrage deployed are sure indicators of the desperation to suppress a far more important line of questioning.

In such a toxic admixture, the conflation of religion, partisan ideology, ‘culturality’ toward any ascribed ‘outrage’ is par for the course. This normalises a frighteningly simplistic binary that diminishes the lofty spirit of the Indian Constitution, which celebrates liberality, secularity, diversity (even of opinions), and the dignity of each Indian citizen, irrespective of their religion, race, ethnicity, or partisan preference.

While the dispensation questions the ‘perception-based indices’ of three globally renowned and independent watchdog agencies, i.e., Freedom in the World Index, EIU Democracy Index, and Varieties of Democracy Index – it is known that the rise of ‘manufactured outrage’ in recent times has had an empirically proven positive correlation to the consistent slide in all indices of the quality of democracy in India. Obviously, no such aspersion is cast if any agency gives a positive indication, e.g., improvement in the parameters of ‘ease of doing business.’

Outrage has also to be selectively curated and deployed. Those supporting the agenda of a certain partisan persuasion are afforded immediate legitimacy and credibility, whereas those who dissent or expose a negative situation must be subjected to manufactured outrage over their ‘vested interest’!

Electoral campaigns and parliamentary sessions are particularly susceptible to manufactured outrage. Campaigns need a combination of fear-mongering and empathy-building toward an individual or community by simply blowing things out-of-proportion; parliamentary sessions need distractions to waste the time allotted on vacuous emotions and avoid discussions on the substantial, as also to rush bills through the din.

It is not just the unhinged career politicians who partake in this ‘outrage’, it even afflicts those from educated and accomplished backgrounds, from whom a more professional, rationale and less theatrical reaction is expected.

Earlier, when an MP from an opposition party queried whether the quality of Indian soil was fit to support bullet trains, the then Railway Minister (a distinguished bureaucrat earlier) reacted with make-believe incredulity and animated gesticulation, thumping on the table repeatedly before slamming, “those who speak of Maa-Maati-Manush (Mother, Motherland and People) are disrespecting the mother (soil) and the motherland”, and as is the wont these days, added that it was tantamount to “questioning the capabilities of Indian scientists”!

All this instead of simply answering the legitimate question raised by the MP over the strength of the soil in scientific terms to be able to support the infrastructure for a bullet train! Why bother when manufactured outrage and a melodramatic performance will help the government carry the day through! That even the ostensibly accomplished professionals in the cabinet need to resort to such stagy exaggerations is indicative of the requirements of the day.

Because ‘manufactured outrage’ requires a structured approach of a ‘content factory’ to develop the same, the preponderance of ‘manufactured outrage’ comes usually from one side of the argument, given the compromised nature of the mass media ecosystem.

As the media landscape comes increasingly under one partisan persuasion, more instances of manufactured outrage will tend to occur to deny the last vestiges of opposition or contrarian expressions.

Peter Strzok in his book Compromised notes, “A relentless distortion of reality numbs a country’s populace to outrage and weakens its ability to discern truth from fiction”. He goes on to add how authoritarianism manifests: “Still, another was by undermining dissent, questioning the validity of opposition, and refusing to honour public will, up to and including threatening or preventing the peaceful transfer of power”.

While Peter’s doomsday allusion was toward a mature democracy like the US, imagine the threat to a “flawed democracy” like India, a status to which it has slid recently.

(The writer is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)