Those who live by the tweet, die by the tweet. For some months now, Shashi Tharoor has been a Twitter phenomenon, tweeting several times a day to over seven lakh followers. Though the tweets have often got him into trouble (‘cattle class’, the visa issue etc), Tharoor has been unrepentant.
A few weeks ago—before the sweat equity controversy broke—he explained his position to me in an interview for CNBC. The advantage with Twitter, he suggested, was that it allowed him to reach over seven lakh people whenever he wanted, without relying on the filter of the media. His Twitter audience, he pointed out gently, was much greater than the number of people who would watch our interview. (True).
At the time, many peopled regarded Tharoor’s Twitter following with awe. Twitter was the voice of a young, enthusiastic middle class, happy to have its say on a variety of issues and unburdened by the pressures of literacy. (You can use telegraphese on Twitter because tweets can only be 140 characters long.)
The seven lakh followers were Tharoor’s constituency. He reached them directly whenever he wanted. He did not have to care what journos said about him because rare is the newspaper that reaches seven lakh people. Eventually, some people predicted, it was Tharoor’s followers who would propel his rise as he became the symbol of a new India where citizens (middle-class citizens, at any rate) had the right to express their views and the technology to be heard.
As we now know, it hasn’t quite worked out that way. In fact, Twitter has actually led directly to Tharoor’s downfall. It was on Twitter that Lalit Modi (a much less popular tweeter than Tharoor) provided details of Sunanda Pushkar’s shareholding in the Kochi consortium and set off the events that resulted in Tharoor’s resignation.
Nor has Modi been a Twitter winner. As far as I can tell, he hoped to create a controversy about the owners of the Kochi team, embarrass Tharoor (who was ‘mentoring’ the consortium) and then use the furore as an excuse to take away the franchise and give it to somebody else.
Instead, all he has achieved is Tharoor’s exit from the ministry. The Kochi consortium is still in place. And the taxmen are knocking at Modi’s own door. Now that the government can claim that its own hands are clean (following Tharoor’s departure), it will go for Modi and his BCCI colleagues—who clearly have much to hide—with such vigour that Modi’s own position will come under threat.
The episode teaches us several things. One: there is an instant rush to be derived from putting something on Twitter and getting immediate feedback. But once something is out there in the Twitter universe, you lose all control over it: there is no telling what form the controversy you have started will take. And it may well come back to bite you in the behind—as has happened with both Tharoor and now Modi.
Two: no matter how much action you generate on Twitter, it really makes no difference to how you are perceived by the country as a whole. Tharoor wanted to be seen as the symbol of a new India. Instead, he was seen as a man who was too clever by half. Modi wanted to be perceived as a dynamic sports visionary. He ended up being seen a dodgy, sleazy character.
Three: never confuse following with loyalty. Many people regarded Tharoor’s followers as his loyalists. As the traffic on Twitter has demonstrated over the last week, fellow tweeters (even those who follow Tharoor) are as disparaging about him as anybody else. When I tweeted about this, I got many bemused responses from his followers. They said they followed him to read what he had to say, not because they had any special affection for him. And while they may be called ‘followers’, he was certainly not their leader.
And finally, the events of the last fortnight have reminded us of the wisdom of that old cliché of Indian politics: the worst constituency to have is the middle class. As much as they like supporting you, they love sitting in judgement over you even more. It makes them feel powerful and important. So yes, the middle class can be vocal. But it can also be fickle.
Twitter can be fun. I know because I tweet. I have 3.6 lakh followers. But it cannot be—and should not be—confused with the real world.
Vir Sanghvi, in his column on Twitter-mania (Among The Followers, May 3), has wrongly concluded that Twitter is a virtual world. It is not. I am not on Twitter, but the world there is as real as the people on it because they do exist. Such people, and their mundane, everyday concerns, exist somewhere on earth. These are the people who do use Twitter regularly and are a constituency. R.K. Iyer, Bhopal
Vir Sanghvi has hit the nail on its head; everything is so well-explained. The ipl is nothing but a cricket circus. Prakash Joseph, Oakville, Canada
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT