Mains Marathon

Approach

• Briefly introduce the new media.
• Discuss how new media have changed the landscape of communal polarization.
• Analyse its implications for social cohesion.
• End with a scholarly remark.

Introduction

The advent of new media—including social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), messaging apps (WhatsApp, Telegram), and video platforms (YouTube)—has transformed the nature of communal polarization in India. While traditional media operated under regulatory norms and editorial control, new media are largely unregulated, user-driven, and algorithmically curated. This shift has profound implications for India's social cohesion.

Body

Changing Nature of Communal Polarization in India

• Shift from Physical to Digital Mobilization:
  • Earlier, communal tensions were fuelled by pamphlets, inflammatory speeches, and public rallies organized by political or religious groups.
  • In the digital era, polarization spreads faster and more widely via social media platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter (X).
• Social Media as a Catalyst for Communal Violence:
  • Muzaffarnagar Riots (2013): A morphed video circulated via WhatsApp inflamed tensions and was pivotal in triggering violence.
  • Delhi Riots (2020): Provocative social media posts and hate-filled videos went viral, worsening communal clashes.
  • Fake news and misinformation now act as virtual matchsticks, igniting real-world conflicts.
• Role of Algorithms and Digital Echo Chambers :
  • Algorithmic bias of platforms (e.g., YouTube, Instagram) recommends similar content, creating ideological silos or "echo chambers".
  • Users repeatedly encounter communal narratives, reinforcing prejudices and us-vs-them mindsets.
  • Emotionally charged or hateful content receives more engagement, incentivizing the spread of polarizing material.
• Decentralization and Rise of Individual Actors:
  • Communal content is no longer limited to organized political or religious outfits.
  • Any individual with a smartphone and internet access can now act as a digital propagandist.
• Legal Gaps:
  • Anonymity and lack of accountability on platforms embolden users to post hate content without fear of legal consequences.
  • End-to-end encryption (e.g., on WhatsApp, Telegram) shields communal instigators from law enforcement.
  • Legal gaps and slow judicial processes fail to deter repeat offenders.

Implications for Social Cohesion

• Breakdown of Trust: Suspicion between communities increases. Ordinary incidents get communalized and are given a religious color.
• Inter-community dialogue declines as mutual suspicion replaces coexistence.
• Electoral Polarization: Communal narratives influence voting patterns, leading to a weakening of rational democratic discourse.
• Youth Radicalization: Exposure to online hate content can radicalize impressionable minds, leading to real-world violence.
• In 2024, online hate speech in India surged by 74%, with most incidents targeting minorities and spreading via social media platforms.

Way Forward

• Regulation and Accountability: Enforcing content moderation standards and making platforms accountable through robust data protection and digital laws (like the proposed Digital India Act).
• Media Literacy: Integrating digital literacy into school curricula to help citizens identify fake news and hate content.
• Civil Society Engagement: Promote interfaith harmony through digital storytelling and community-led online campaigns.
• Independent Oversight Bodies: Establishing neutral regulatory bodies for social media oversight.

Conclusion:

New media is not inherently divisive, but in the absence of ethical frameworks, it can tear apart the fabric of communal harmony. As communication theorist Manuel Castells observes, “Power now lies in the codes of communication.” Thus, a digitally connected India must also be ethically and socially united.