The abettors of rage

Over the past few years, the global public has articulated an increasing concern about the influence that social media platforms might exert on a society when co-opted by vested political interests. More specifically, there is an increased worry that there exists a deep-seated accommodation between social media and fascist governments, a point that mirrors the historically cozy relationship between big corporations and fascist governments in the early 20th century.

In India, the country with the largest fake news problem in the world (according to a 2018 Microsoft study), the problem of political manipulation to incite violence has been particularly acute, and so has the coziness of social media giants with the current fascist ruling party (BJP). As recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) investigations have revealed, Facebook has deliberately turned a blind eye to a litany of posts by members of the BJP that constitute a violation of Facebook’s own standards for incitement to violence. At the crux of this controversy lies the character of Ankhi Das, a top Facebook executive who has served as the company’s top lobbyist in Delhi, and nominally its public policy director for India, South & Central Asia. The WSJ has reported Das as saying that punishing violations by BJP workers “would damage the company’s business prospects in the country,” showing a preference for business over ethics or public safety.

The posts in question include those by BJP political members whose statements have urged the purge of Muslims in India, with potential for roiling majoritarian BJP adherents to act on hatred towards the minority community. In recent years, the Indian government has increasingly gained electoral clout by attacking the Muslims of India, a point that is not lost upon many observers of Facebook and other social media’s lax standards towards dangerous content, as shown in testimonies before the US Congress.

While serving as Facebook’s main lobbyist in India, Das has driven Facebook to let slip many posts that would incite violence, but Das’s links to far-right organisations run deeper, as Das’s twin sister is still a committed Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) activist. Das had also held a similar lobbying position at Microsoft earlier in her career. However, Facebook’s response has been its usual trope: “we prohibit hate speech and content that incites violence and we enforce these policies globally without regard to anyone’s political position or party affiliation.” 

But scholars dating back to the 20th century interwar period have carefully pointed out the frighteningly close relationships that develop between business and fascist politicians with relative ease. Daniel Guerin’s seminal 1936 work Fascism and Big Business highlighted how big business and fascist governments in Germany and Italy would easily come into accommodation, and big business would happily sacrifice moral considerations for a larger slice of the corporate pie.

While 20th century businesses might have included the banking, pharmaceutical, construction, and transport sectors (among others), the much newer industry of social media seems equally keen to jump on the fascist bandwagon while sacrificing ethical duties to protect minorities from violence. The economic pie is not small either; India became Facebook’s largest user market in 2017 when it crossed the 240 million-user mark. Today, the number exceeds 300 million, accounting for more than 10% of Facebook’s entire global user base. Yet social media is as much a political and social phenomenon as an economic one, but the choices that the titans of Silicon Valley are making today might literally put people’s lives in danger thousands of miles away. 

By hiring fascist sympathisers in foreign markets, Facebook is reflecting a longstanding ethos of big business that prioritises greater sales over people’s lives. Facebook thus becomes an abettor of rage, and a larger instrument in the hybrid warfare strategies of countries such as India which yearn to persecute their minorities. Of all the critiques of Facebook, and they are by no means trifling, abetting the violence of hard-line fascists must count among the most egregious. 

Dr. Usman W. Chohan is Director for Economics and National Affairs at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS). This article was first published in The Nation newspaper. He can be reached at [email protected]

Image Source: Digital Vidya 


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »