It can make up our mind for us, prejudge certain issues, and ensure that some matters are treated with bias if not bigotry
Everyone seems obsessed with two questions these days: What exactly did the young, scholarly and otherwise articulate priest, Bolmax Pereira, exactly say? Did he do wrong by discussing the intersection of history-politics-and-other-people's-faith in the course of a sermon? Should there be limits on what is allowed to be said at a place of worship?
There's probably little point in discussing these issues here. People will see (or imagine) exactly what they want to see (or imagine) in whatever was said or done.
Some judged the comments from the perspectives of history. Others read it in terms of its potential to hurt emotions. Some even misinterpreted what the priest said, in an attempt to bend over backwards and appear fair to all. Selective parts of the video were doing the rounds, which might have separated the statement from its context.
This brings us to a more relevant point: agenda-setting by the social media.
Social media can play a positive role. It can give a voice to neglected or niche groups, or tiny groups. Those which are not seen as large enough to be a market. But it can also be misused and used as a "weapon of mass distraction". It can make up our mind for us, prejudge certain issues, and ensure that some matters are treated with bias if not bigotry.
Once the word goes out, fast and far, that a priest has "insulted" Shivaji, that will be taken as the truth. The charge gets life of its own.
Two points need to be noted here.
For one, it's not very difficult to rabble-rouse and collect a group of a hundred or so people to undertake just about any action or protest.
To the average citizen, this might seem like a very spontaneous protest happening by outraged individuals. Yet, a few strategic WhatsApp messages sent via a few select groups are all it takes to manufacture outrage.
We've seen such rise suddenly in two recent cases. The first was the Shivaji statue that was built overnight on the Calangute-Saligao border. Now the protests over what the priest said in church. Without doubt, this is a new development in Goa's political trends.
In addition, we have a situation where politicians don't seem to be too concerned nowadays about maintaining the peace, or coming across as playing fair to all sides concerned. They too jump into the fray and, maybe, even add some fuel.
The manipulation of public opinion, and even politics, via the social media, is an issue which has inadequate attention so far, at least in Goa itself. We've seen it happen on much larger and wider levels, whether it is the Right wing wins (with Brexit, Boris Johnson in the UK or Donald Trump in the US). Some elections have also shown similar trends in our parts of the globe. Goa will not be immune to such trends.
It is not surprising to see Goa get worked up about non-issues and trivia on the eve of a crucial Parliamentary elections. Even as the Modi government comes under increasing pressure at New Delhi (it may still win the day, you never know!) every seat matters. Even a small state like Goa could count. If the local satraps manage to bag both of the two Lok Sabha seats here (not a difficult task, give or take a few more controversies), that would win brownie points and a lot more with the party that has ruled New Delhi since 2014.
But what was surprising was to see that despite the emotions raked up using issues of hyper-nationalism and religious sentiments, at least some understood that the issue was not what it was made out to be.
There were those who questioned the State narrative (promptly taken, unlike in other cases) which saw politicians and police respond quick and fast.
Social media redeemed itself a bit by creating the space for alternative views and narratives to be taken on this issue. This came as a breath of fresh air. But it was few and far between. Most people are likely to believe a sensational statement, even if it is fake or exaggerated.
Yet, inspite of this, it is sad to see the way the mainstream media can sometimes get played along in cyberspace. Misleading reports quickly get life of their own, and are widely circulated. Nobody bothers to read the fine print of the clarifications.
At the end of the day, important lessons emerge from the Shivaji debate. The first is the State is now obliged to be equally prompt in taking action, when the words or deeds of anyone is seen to be offending the religious (or other) sensibilities of a section of the population. So far, many provocative and downright communal statements have gone unchecked.
For its part, there is need for a debate, within all religious communities as to what are the limits of free speech. It would be fine if religious institutions, including the Church but not only it, decide where to draw the line when it comes to discourses from a religious platform. But should they do so merely because of pressures from the mob? Would that not be a weak-kneed stand of cowardice?
Can social issues at all be discussed by faith communities? Who decides what is to be discussed within a private religious platform? Is it right to record and publicly disseminate religious discourses, which can then be selectively quoted by anyone, and controversy raised?
Finally, if one wants to create a controversy, any issue is good enough. Years of soft-communalism in Goa are adding up, and it's not going to be an easy task to overcome bias and bigotry fuelled even as election dates come closer to us.
