The moral hazard of WhatsApp groups

There are more than 532 million WhatsApp users in India (July 2022 figures), which is 40 per cent of the population. Most of them belong to some WhatsApp group or the other, usually to multiple ones. It would not be incorrect to state that the country, socially and politically, is divided into innumerable WhatsApp groups, which now provide the bricks and mortar for our society and polity.

The sheer diversity of these groups is mind boggling, encompassing various categories of citizens, all dedicated to their particular niche — RWAs (resident welfare associations), bloggers, business entities, political parties, vloggers, civil services (both serving and retired), yoga, trekkers, civil society, family groups and many others.

These WA groups are an unparalleled medium for exchanging news and views — and therein lies the problem. Ever since the right wing juggernaut started rolling in 2014, we have been divided as a nation as never before, in our ideologies, political loyalties, religious proclivities, levels of inclusivity and tolerance. It was inevitable that these divisions would spill over into the WA groups too, but the level of toxicity and venom that has accompanied this process was perhaps not anticipated, and presents some of us with a moral hazard.

The right-wing elements, bound by a common Hindutva thread and an unquestioning adoration for the Supreme Leader, are by far the more aggressive components of these groups, supported and egged on by the BJP's IT cell, a fawning media, fake news, an omnipotent and over-arching government whose spokespersons provide fresh ammunition to these 'bhakts' on a daily basis. Most groups have been taken over by these elements.

This presents a problem for the more moderate elements, the much abused 'sickulars', who would rather go by evidence and not mere claims, by cold figures and not ranting, respect history and not redact or rewrite it, do not subscribe to the view that the BJP and the nation are synonymous with each other, who are happy with our current Constitution and do not wish it to be dismembered, believe that India's strength lies in its diversity and not an imposed homogeneity, who abhor the deliberate differentiation  of majority and minority (whether by a government or an opposition party), are opposed to the oligarchs taking over the economy, believe that fundamental rights are the bedrock of any liberal democracy and do not believe that this country needs to be a Hindu rashtra.

But they are usually shouted down by the majoritarian loyalists, whether the issue under discussion is Gaza, Canada, Kashmir, the hijab, CAA, madrasas, MSP, EVMs, partisan governors, federalism, electoral bonds, denial of bail to thousands, bulldozers, Pegasus, Adani or Arundhati Roy.

The trolling can get vicious, abusive, even personal. Which is why one has to ask oneself the question: should one put up with the rabid rantings of these politically illiterate and ethically bankrupt elements, or should one quit the group? It is a question many of us have had to ask ourselves sometime or the other in these last 10 years. The standard response is to either fall silent in the face of these attacks, or to try to reason with these BJP shock troopers. Neither serves the purpose of defending what one stands for.

Silence is never an option in the face of bullying or intimidation, nor is it an adequate defence of what we stand for; in fact, it can even amount to passive collusion. As Martin Luther King Jr had said: 'In the end we will remember, not the hatred of our enemies but the silence of our friends.' Silence only emboldens the oppressors.

Reasoning with these lumpens also does not help, for their minds are as tightly shut as bear traps and the light is never allowed to penetrate there. It is also not a good idea to wrestle with pigs, as someone said, for they will drag you down into the mud and win with their superior experience in that element. Continuing as a member of these groups only provides their administrators a fig-leaf façade of open-mindedness and fair-handedness, of intellectual inclusivity, whereas in reality these groups are actually being used to spread their messages of hate, Islamophobia and support of fascist ideas.

Because the problem here is not one of mere differences of opinion or perspectives. One can certainly differ on policies, whether they relate to the economy, business, education curriculae, climate change, the creamy layer and reservation, defence strategies or a host of subjects that make up the fabric of daily living and governance. In fact, a diversity of views and debate is the mark of a healthy society.

But there can certainly be no two views about the fundamental values of civilisation and democracy — pluralism, religious tolerance, human rights, secularism, freedom of speech, affirmative action for the disadvantaged, respect for the Constitution, and so on. These values have been arrived at after millennia of conflict, slaughter and suffering, form the bedrock of humanity, and are indivisible and inalienable.  

There should be no compromise on them, no give and take. They are, to use a phrase now famous, the basic structure of civilisation and cannot be allowed to be tampered with, least of all by a political party in search of a thousand-year reich.

There is also a larger issue of basic morality involved here: should we continue to associate with people who oppose these fundamental truths and possess such toxic values which are completely antithetical with our own? Should we become complicit with their messaging by our silence or quiet acceptance with just some mild protest? Or should we quit these groups, whether they involve friends or relatives? For some wise guidance on these vexed questions, we can do worse than heed these words of author and activist Ijeoma Oluo: "We cannot be friends with those who actively support oppression and hate. Friendship requires a certain level of integrity."

Or these sentiments of the American talk show host Jon Stewart: "If you're a friend of a bigot, you're a bigot."

Guilt by association is an accepted principle of law. Quitting such groups is  a statement, a positive and not a negative one, it makes clear where you stand, validates your conscience and frees you from the asphyxiation of toxic relationships.

Something to think about.

Avay Shukla is a retired IAS officer and the author of Disappearing Democracy: Dismantling of a Nation and other works. He blogs at avayshukla.blogspot.com