Current Affairs: Why is there so much outrage against outrage

One phenomenon that nobody in India would have escaped noting and experiencing is the outraging community and the counter-outraging community. There is a large network out there - its arguable if they can be described as a community - which is outraging against the so-called intolerance, sexual assault, perceived loss of freedom of expression etc., so much so that it has almost become a cottage industry of professional outragers. There is also a counter outraging network that is out there to discredit the former for a variety of reasons which we shall explore in this article. While the former is well-entrenched in academics, media, intellectual circles the latter is largely the social media supported by political parties along with a section of the media. The former controls the formal instruments of public expression and the latter controls the informal instruments. The former also includes other sections of the society - which I shall resist referring to keep a certain focus for this article. This level playing field is obviously the result of the emergence of social media. Why is there so much outrage against the outrage? Lets take it head-on. This is how the common man sees the outraging community.

1. The outrage is politically motivated and targeted against a political party

It is unmistakably so - that the outraging network has a political objective. It wants to discredit a political party and bring it down from the pedestal. In the light of it, it projects every possible crime on the ground as a result of the ascent of this political party and concoct theories, hypothesis and narratives to build a truth value to that effect. It conveniently ignores every counter-narrative. It controls the formal channels and does not provide a space for counter-narrative, thereby pushing it to explore informal social  channels which by nature cannot be controlled.

2. The outrage is deliberately selective to serve the purpose mentioned in Point-1

Very obviously, all the elements that the outraging network picks are a secular reality in India. It happens in all states across all communities. With such high dynamism induced by modernity beyond the ability of the society and the state to negotiate with, crime has been a natural outcome across the board. If you can target one party you can easily use the same yardstick to attack another party. If you can target one community you can easily target another community.

However, the outraging community has been openly, brazenly and disgustingly selective in its outrage. It has picked states, regions, cases to show one party and a section of the society as culprit. At times it has twisted the cases to suit its narrative. When proved otherwise, it just turned a blind eye instead of humbly apologizing. With the power of language and with infinite amount of media space, it has arrogated itself with the power to manufacture outrage towards the purpose of point-1.

Society has obviously seen through this and the emergence of social media has given it an opportunity to strike back with vengeance and boy - has it struck back. Often it has gone to the other extreme. It is much like Sage Parashurama going into the excess of exterminating kshatriyas in order to avenge the tyranny of Kartaveeryarjuna.

3. There is no response to criticism or to alternate narratives

The outraging community absolutely refuses to respond to criticism. It started the process of referring to the subjects of its criticisms through derogative terms, which resulted in them paying back in kind. It is the outraging community that began the deterioration of the cultural atmosphere not the other way around. Treating its opponents contemptuously it brazenly ignored all attempts to engage with alternate narratives put forth by the respectable part of their counter-parts. Thereby they indirectly brought the ruffians on the other side to the forefront. Through absolute arrogance it demanded that the society buy only their narrative otherwise the society would be treated contemptuously. It is this arrogance that was the last straw that has now resulted in this titanic of counter-outrage.

The outraging industry consists of two sections. The First section is the outrage manufacturers. They are the ones holding the political objective of booting out a certain political party. But it knows that it cannot be seen as brazenly political. It knows how to message the narrative so that the larger society or a section of it falls prey. The Second section is the larger society or a section of it that is very  sensitive, conscious and responsible. They are easily vulnerable and susceptible to false narratives. Guilt is induced too fast. They are ever-ready to be co-opted with good intention but in bad faith. They are being used and few understand that.

These are the three reasons why the larger society has turned a blind-eye to the outrage. The outraging network has totally lost credibility because of the selective nature of the outrage, being politically motivated and the absolute refusal to engage with the genuine counterparts. The larger society has developed contempt for this cottage industry of outrage and rightly so.

Those who are genuinely concerned about the going-ons of the country have the arduous but unavoidable responsibility of building consistent, uniform, impartial and comprehensive narratives expressed in ways that does not seem the same as the outraging industry. This is the occupational hazard of our times.