The world suddenly appears more engrossed in Indian democracy. As unprecedented as it is sponsored, this week saw yet another proof of this newfound interest. Former Twitter CEO and co-founder, Jack Dorsey, claimed that the Indian government threatened to shut down Twitter and raid employees unless it complied with orders to restrict accounts critical of the farmer protests. This diatribe during a YouTube interview once again pitched the government against a belligerent opposition. Notably, Dorsey stepped down as the micro-blogging site’s CEO in 2021, overseeing Twitter’s operations during the farmers’ agitation. The government has outrightly rejected the charges.
Union Minister of State for Entrepreneurship, Skill Development, Electronics, and Technology, Rajeev Chandrashekhar, reminded everyone that no Twitter employee went to jail and nobody was raided during the farmers’ agitation. Terming it as an “attempt to brush out that (Dorsey’s) very dubious period of Twitter’s history,” Chandrashekhar accused Dorsey and his team of “repeated and continuous violations of Indian law.”
Dorsey appears to have taken liberties with facts while hurling accusations. His insinuation that freedom of expression in India is at the mercy of the government and any dissent is either censored or crushed lacks merit. In other words, he has tried to convince the world that the largest democracy in human history is a sham. Even such a skewed version of reality has divided the Indian polity, as the opposition sees him as a savior of democracy. The Congress apparently doesn’t see any reason for Dorsey to lie. Shiv Sena’s Uddhav Thackeray took a shot at the Prime Minister by asking if the country had “democracy” or “Modicracy.”
Politics aside, the question remains whether Dorsey’s claims are credible, especially when his company was seen by many as siding with the agitators on numerous occasions. One may recall several viral pro-farmer tweets by Western celebrities like singer Rihanna and climate activist Greta Thunberg. Furthermore, farmer leader Rakesh Tikait’s Twitter account was verified when the company had ceased to give this privilege to any user. While there is nothing wrong with supporting the farmers’ cause, it becomes unbecoming when you control one of the world’s most powerful social media companies. Questions will be asked about Twitter’s objectivity under Dorsey. It was just about the time when Delhi Police revealed that 308 pro-farmer Twitter handles came into existence in just five days, from January 13 to January 18, all of them in Pakistan. Twitter was predictably reluctant to take action.
Contrary to Dorsey’s statement, Twitter had restricted the accounts of BJP stalwarts like Ravi Shankar Prasad, who was in charge of the Law Ministry during that period. It did not spare even the then Vice-President Venkaiah Naidu’s account at one point. Another instance that comes to mind is the removal of the profile picture from Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s account. Could this have been possible if Twitter was under government pressure? Even though Rahul Gandhi was among the leaders whose accounts were temporarily restricted during the farmers’ agitation, the Congress party put the blame on the Modi Government’s arm-twisting tactics.
Dorsey’s tenure is also tainted by the presence of several anti-India figures around him. Vijaya Gadde, the company’s legal affairs and policy chief under Dorsey, was perceived to be close to India’s leftists. Upon Gadde’s orders, the then US President Donald Trump was banned from Twitter. Inspired by Gadde, Dorsey held a placard calling for “smashing” Brahminical patriarchy while posing for a photograph during his India visit in 2018. This caused an uproar, and Gadde had to apologize.
Elon Musk’s so-called “Twitter Files” also cast aspersions on Dorsey’s conduct as Twitter’s CEO. The files revealed that Dorsey had formed a group that “blacklisted” any person within the organization who differed on ideology. Tweets by such individuals allegedly had limited reach, and they rarely trended. This supposed “visibility filtering” was kept secret from users. Dorsey’s chosen ones were running the company based on their whims, manipulating global opinion. One can only imagine how dangerous such leverage could be in today’s tumultuous world.
One might also ask why Dorsey was silent for two years. Why has he chosen to speak now when PM Narendra Modi is about to embark on the US state visit? The Biden administration has gone out of its way to shower praise on PM Modi and his lieutenants and address all doubts about the health of Indian democracy. Dorsey should reflect on whether he has reduced himself to a tool in the hands of the anti-India gang by throwing mud at India. The opposition’s outcry on the matter is sufficient to disprove his vitriol.
