When Chetan Bhagat abused an anti-abuse article!

Abuse is never desirable. “Abuse” is a broad term used to denote misuse of a faculty or endowment usually with violent intent, invariably with undesirable effects. When talking about speech or writing, that which we call “abusive” in common parlance, is someone (mis)using language for an expression of violence. It is meant to hurt, is always deplorable.

I came across this blog from Chetan Bhagat today- “Anatomy of an internet troll: How social media birthed a strange new phenomenon in India, the bhakts”. While reading the title, by the time I got to the semicolon, I thought it would be an analysis of those who abuse. When I read the complete title, it appeared to be not Mr Bhagat’s analysis of the evil that abuse is, or a promotion of the dignified behaviour, but his own abusive strike against a specific section of Social Media users. A little disappointed, I decided to clear my doubt so I read on, hoping it would at least be intelligent.

The first cardinal sin Mr Bhagat commits as a commentator is that he bases his article NOT on a larger value, say dignified conduct, but uses one, or the lack of it, to single out and attack a section of SM users. His piece suggests that all bhakts are trolls, and they are abusive. Incidentally the term “Bhakt” was invented not out of overwhelming love for this section of SM users but to abuse/ridicule them. Mr Bhagat uses this abusive term throughout his anti-abuse article! I won’t make it an issue here because those they call bhakts are open-minded enough not to mind being called Bhakts. I WILL make an issue of him equating abuse with this particular section.

It is gigantism of ignorance if one attributes “abusive behaviour” only to Bhakts. For a fact one of the patriarchs of abuse on twitter was one Mr Amaresh Mishra, a known Congress supporter, who had the rare distinction of being one of the first to be arrested for abusive tweeting. Here are some of his gems… discretion advised!

 
There are scores of non-Bhakts, including media personalities and celebs who are abusive. The august list includes Marxists, Congress supporters, AAP-Supporters, media-persons, celebs, name it! Expectedly all these abuses are against those they call Bhakts. (Discretion advised again)

(Img src: Various Twitter handles including BSKS)

I do not intend to argue that it is ok for one side to abuse if the other does. I am only intrigued why Mr Bhagat missed out on these and attributed abuse ONLY to so-called bhakts. Isn’t using his outreach as a popular author, to nitpick, generalize and denigrate a specific section of SM users an abuse of his outreach and popularity?

Mr Bhagat tops this travesty with a definition of Bhakt. He attributes these qualities to them:

• Male
• Weak communication skills particularly in English
• Not good at talking to women, sexually frustrated
• Hindu and ashamed of being one

A misreading could not be more deliberate. I call it deliberate because I have faith in IITs and IIMs that certified the adequacy of Mr Bhagat’s competence. Some of the most vocal and popular accounts among those labelled “Bhakts” are women! Mr Bhagat would’ve got an idea if some reasonable guilt did not prevent him from checking his notifications after posting this article. HE perhaps tried to sanitize the write-up by excluding women from the bhakt category because he was trying to amplify the effect of his hate rant by making it an issue of “abuse against women”. Identifying women among Bhakts would’ve opened him to criticism for bad-mouthing women and consequent hypocrisy. Clever, only by half.

If Mr Bhagat’s world view is shaped by his own experiences (which mostly is the case), I would sympathise with him for all the sadness in his life. He believes women are so shallow as to rate men solely on their delivery in English. Men and women alike appreciate wit, information and perspectives. Some very popular handles on twitter usually tweet in Hindi. But by generalizing this shallow view of women’s choices, borne either out his experiences or some skewed imagination, he is abusing the very women for whose honour he fancies donning the fighting tights.

Mr Bhagat then invokes the Sunday-psychologist in him and diagnoses the Right leaning Hindi Hindu males with “sexual frustration”. It’s fascinating trying to decode his reasoning that connects sexual frustration with abuse. It goes like this:

You want to have sex with the other person, but you cannot, so you are frustrated sexually and start abusing 

I have seen beautiful bonds develop here on twitter in the right wing space. Men and women address each other and brothers and sisters. There are women who are respected as motherly figures. Many men and women with a Hindi-hindu RW inclination have made amazing friends on Social Media. By generalizing Hindi-Hindu-RW-Males as sexually frustrated & abusive, isn’t Mr Bhagat insinuating that the many women who talk to these men, and are not being abused, are somehow gratifying them sexually? Perhaps he didn't intend to but the side whose narrative he is pandering to, will likely use this generalization to ridicule women conversant with RW leaning men. This is how stereotypes work. Isn’t this reductionism abusive?

If all abuse were a result of sexual frustration, how would Mr. Bhagat explain this?

Per Mr. Bhagat’s analysis, Mr. Sardesai wanted to have sex with all those who called him “paid media”, since he couldn’t, he abused!

Mr Bhagat also has a problem with the antagonists of his piece because they espouse the Hindu pride. He reasons and I quote:

“One, these true bhakts are not just Hindu fanatics. They are not all VHP members. Some of them don’t even identify with the Hindu cause, they call themselves nationalists instead. Their stated aim, if you are to believe them, is nation building and winning back for India its lost glory. In reality, they are neither Hindu warriors nor nationalists(…)”

They are not Hindu warriors apparently because they talk of Hindu pride. They are not nationalists because they talk of “nation-building and winning back for India its lost glory”. By this line of thought, Mr. Bhagat, who is concerned about respect for women does not care two hoots about any respect for any woman. These suggestions and prescriptions by him might even make this stupefying deduction credible!

 

(img src: @bwoyblunder)

I think in his zeal to subtly abuse all RW-Hindi-Hindu males Mr Bhagat might’ve made some not-so-subtle enemies too. He claimed Hindi-Hindu males are the poorest in India. Facts be damned, but that apart, this makes all of them look stupid, who are claiming muslim reservation on the pretext that Muslims are the poorest community in India.

There are other obvious hypocrisies too. For instance, the victims he roots for and who are “incidentally women” are “under attack or being abused” if their hypocrisies are exposed. But it is an “innocuous freedom of expression” when these people badmouth the PM or when they badmouthed the very candid and delicate expression that (#SelfieWithDaughter) was, just out of spite for the PM. Extending Mr Bhagat's ridiculous generalization, all detratctors of Mr Modi who abuse him day in & out are sexually frustrated on being deprived by Mr Modi?

I, and i believe no one by now, subscribes to this line of reasoning. Abuse is a symptom of many a malaise, not just sexual frustration. Anonymity may instigate perversion in some. While many just  see media & liberals being caught lying every single day & then going scott free to repeat their malice over and over again. It induces frustration which manifests through abuse. In any case, abuse is to be discouraged and many responsible handles from among RW Hindi-Hindu-Males do that.
One would be naturally inquisitive by now, as to why Mr Bhagat would abuse his popularity, his outreach, the women he claims to be concerned about and the RW Hindi-Hindu-males, to produce such an obvious piece of unmitigated disaster and put his reputation on the line?

Perhaps this is in-vogue if you look at the dividends earned by some claiming “victims of abusive sanghi/bhakt trolls”. Being a victim of Sanghis is generating quite a bit of mushy love in media circles. If you are looking for easy publicity, this would be the way to go.

Or maybe it’s because he was trolled quite a bit for judging Nach Baliye, he probably expected love that he didn’t get and is now the jilted lover seeking retribution.

It could even be an attempt at making new friends across the board so he could attend the parties he always wanted to but was never invited to. Friends who could help him makeover his “popular-but-not-classy-author” image.

Whatever the reasons be, I hope nobody used his own piece to analyse his abuses on the RW-Hindi-Hindu male, for if they do, it would turn out:

• Mr Bhagat is a male.
• Mr Bhagat has deep seated inferiority complexes, probably stemming from the lack of acceptance of his as an author of some stature
• Mr Bhagat is sexually frustrated with eyes on RW-Hindi-Hindu males
• Mr Bhagat is a liberal but is ashamed of it   

Mr Bhagat, i only intend to highlight your thoughtlessness behind the abject stereotyping. I am not experiencing a testosterone surge, nor do I mean to abuse. It is my appeal that you use your outreach judiciously and write to debate not to denigrate. As for your advise on dealing with abusers (equated with bhakts), I wish to tell you that social media has matured enough to ignore and block habitual abusers across the ideological spectrum even before you produced this insight. The prospective friends that he roots for, have a problem with the non-abusive ones, who challenge them, with whom the engage but cannot win an argument. "Abusive tweep" is a bogey raised to club these challengers with the abusers and recycle their shame to make some fame.

In the absence of this intellectual honesty, your article is nothing but an abuse in the name of an anti-abuse article!