
Tavleen Singh writes: Trolling as a political weapon
When you have been trolled on social media as often as I have, you learn to ignore the garbage that is flung at you. I am also aware that on social media political parties that do not like what you write or say have discovered that the way to shut you up is by maligning you so that you finally agree with them or shut up. As someone whose private life has been dredged through filth regularly on social media, I have chosen to ignore trolls from both our main political parties.
If this week I am choosing to pay attention to spiteful trolls and the tawdry political machinery that keeps them in business, it is because it is not possible to remain silent when you are accused of treason. Silence against a charge as serious as treason is unwise at the best of times and more so in the wake of a war when hostilities remain so alive that the Prime Minister rarely makes a speech these days in which he does not threaten Pakistan. Hostilities are still so alive that Pakistani singers have been erased from Spotify and thousands of Pakistani social media handles have been erased as well. Why India should be so insecure in victory is hard to understand but that is a subject for another day.
This week let me stick to the treason charge that was flung at me last week on social media. As someone who has just discovered ChatGPT and Grok, I am new to the marvels and dangers of Artificial Intelligence so I posted on X a video of Donald Trump mocking the Indian Air Force with the rider that if this was not fake, then we should realise that Trump is not on our side. I did this because I truly was not sure that it was a fake. And because it has angered me that instead of supporting our war against terrorism, the American President has equivocated and made India and Pakistan sound like juvenile, querulous neighbours fighting over something that has 'gone on for a thousand years.'
Also, I have heard from friends in foreign countries that the impression they have formed of Operation Sindoor is that it was a draw. That Pakistan was attacked by India and that it fought back. This narrative is so prevalent that our Prime Minister has sent all-party delegations to countries across the globe to correct the narrative. So, it did not surprise me to see a video of Trump making fun of the Indian Air Force. What has surprised me is that because of it the BJP's army of trolls has now accused me of being a Pakistani agent and 'having an agenda'.
This second charge came from a podcast, followed by eminent members of the BJP's higher echelons, in which a woman who could not get my name right gave me lessons in journalism. She said that journalism is not just about opinions but about checking facts before putting them out. She then proceeded to accuse me of being a supporter of Pakistan and an enemy of India's development without checking her own facts. She could have begun by getting my name right.
If she were not followed by senior BJP leaders, I would not have bothered to respond but since she is, I feel the need to clarify the facts. In charging me with having an anti-India agenda she mentioned two specific incidents. One about a Dalit child who drowned and who, she claims, I 'lied' had acid thrown in his face by upper caste thugs. The truth is that I follow a Dalit handle that records atrocities against Dalits, most of them horrific and all too real, and I have reposted them often adding the words 'another horror story'. This podcast lady claims that in this case, there was no atrocity. It was too long ago for me to remember but since atrocities against Dalits are routine does it matter?
Then Miss Patriot went on to charge me with having opposed Atal Bihari Vajpayee's golden quadrilateral in a long-ago column in India Today. She saw this as an example of my being an enemy of India's development. If she had read the article she would have discovered that what I objected to was existing roads being widened into highways in the name of building new ones. What I suggested was that the money being spent on widening these roads would have been better spent on building an access-controlled highway between Delhi and Mumbai.
In any case, the point I am trying to make this week is that it is not about one nasty harridan or others of her ilk. If they were not backed at the highest levels by either the BJP or the Congress Party, they would be people of no consequence. Sadly, they are backed by our two major political parties and trust me when I tell you that they are such a third-rate, tawdry bunch of trolls that the leaders of these parties should notice that it is they who are shamed every time they open their foul mouths.
It is not political points that they end up making but personal attacks that seek mostly to defame someone so badly that they shut up. I have chosen instead to develop a thick skin. But it is not thick enough to withstand a charge of treason.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
33 minutes ago
- Indian Express
History of US role in India-Pakistan issues: Four wars, the hyphen, and Trump
US President Donald Trump has yet again claimed that he 'got India and Pakistan to stop fighting' by using trade talks as a bargaining chip. 'We talk trade, and we say we can't trade with people who are shooting at each other and potentially using nuclear weapons… They understood and they agreed, and that all stopped,' Trump said on May 31. New Delhi has repeatedly emphasised that the recent ceasefire in Operation Sindoor came after bilateral talks with Pakistan, and that trade with US did not figure in the calculations. While Trump is known for making extraordinary statements, his claims of 'stopping a potential nuclear war' between India and Pakistan touch a raw nerve for New Delhi. Trump's rhetoric — deliberately or unwittingly — is 'hyphenating' India and Pakistan again, something India has long fought against. Secondly, it goes against India's established position that its problems with Pakistan have to be resolved bilaterally, without the need for third party intervention. And as far as third parties go, the US on many occasions has acted more in Pakistan's interests than India's. What is India's hyphenation with Pakistan, and why does New Delhi oppose it? Why is New Delhi against third party intervention? And what has the USA's role been in India-Pakistan hostilities in the past? We explain. The history of the hyphenation and of India's distrust of third parties are intertwined. Barely two months after independence in August 1947, infiltrators from Pakistan attacked Jammu and Kashmir. Viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten advised India to go to the UN, which it did on January 1, 1948. India had expected that its rights over a territory which legitimately acceded to it would be respected at the UN. However, the British did not support India, which many Indians perceived as a betrayal. Historian Ramachandra Guha writes (in the book India after Gandhi) of the January-February 1948 UN sessions, 'India suffered a significant symbolic defeat when the Security Council altered the agenda item from the 'Jammu and Kashmir question' to the 'India-Pakistan question'.' This is how the formal hyphenation on international fora began. India's objection to this treatment broadly are — such a framing puts India and Pakistan on the same level when the two parties are not comparable actors, India is the victim of Pakistan's territorial aggression; and that India's identity, as a democratic country and significant economy, can't be tied to Pakistan's. New Delhi believes that the world should engage with India in its own right and not as one half of a conflict zone. This is a goal it has been able to achieve to a large degree. The UN episode also put India off bringing in bigger powers, while Pakistan preferred internationalising the Kashmir issue. During the Cold War years, the West, led by the US, saw Pakistan as a critical ally in the tussle with the Soviet Union, while the non-aligned India was considered less dependable. Later, the war in Afghanistan and the US 'war on terror' ensured Pakistan's importance for the US and the West, often to India's disadvantage. Also, India with its potential to emerge as a leader of the Global South, does not believe it depends on bigger powers to help solve its problems. The role of the US To understand this in brief, the USA's actions during four wars fought by India can be considered. Alongside this, India and US have had a storied bilateral relationship quite independent of the Pakistan issue. The 1947 India-Pakistan war: Quite contrary to what Trump is doing now, in 1947, the US wanted India and Pakistan to resolve their issues bilaterally. A position paper sent by the US Secretary of State to the embassy in India says, 'We would much prefer that the Kashmir question be settled by direct negotiation between India and Pakistan. However, in the event that a resolution requesting the intervention of the United Nations, and in particular requesting the United Nations to supervise a referendum in Kashmir, is introduced by India or Pakistan and supported by the United Kingdom, the United States Delegation should also support the resolution.' The 1962 India-China war: In this war, the US helped India, airlifting military supplies. However, it used the goodwill thus generated to get together with the UK and pressure India to talk to Pakistan. Six rounds of talks were held, with no progress. Then US Undersecretary of State Chester Bowles wrote about that period, 'We had also—rather ineptly—seized upon India's acute need for US assistance as a lever to force India to make concessions to the Pakistanis in regard to Kashmir, which no democratic Indian Government could make and survive.' While the fighting was on, then US President John F Kennedy is believed to have stopped Pakistan from opening another front against India. Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow of the American think tank Brookings, wrote in 2015, 'Then Pakistan President Ayub Khan told Kennedy that he wanted 'compensation' from India in Kashmir for Pakistan's neutrality during the war. Kennedy made clear to Ayub that no such compensation would be tolerated, and that Pakistani intervention in the war in the Himalayas would be seen by Washington as a hostile act.' The 1971 India-Pakistan war: This was the time the US backed Pakistan most forcefully and publicly, even dispatching warships towards the Bay of Bengal. The US Department of State has a website called Office of the Historian. Its article on the 1971 war says that as Pakistan had recently helped the US and China start diplomatic ties, Washington decided to back Pakistan against India, but the 'action against the mass protests in East Pakistan was well-publicized and widely condemned, which limited the extent to which the US Government was willing to help the Pakistani Government…' Eventually, America's actions during this war damaged its prestige 'in both nations, in Pakistan for failing to help prevent the loss of East Pakistan and in India for supporting the brutality of the Pakistani regime's actions…' The Kargil war of 1999: If the previous war had seen the US veer very close to Pakistan, the Kargil war redefined its relationship with India. Riedel wrote in 2019, 'When the US determined that Pakistan had deliberately violated the Line of Control near Kargil, [then President Bill] Clinton did not hesitate to blame Pakistan for risking a broader war. For the first time, an American administration was siding publicly with India against Pakistani aggression.' Clinton played a major role in getting Pakistan to retreat behind the LOC. After this, Clinton visited the subcontinent in 2000. He was the first US President to come to India in over 20 years. He spent five days in India, in contrast with just a few hours in Pakistan. Apart from these wars, the US has also worked to defuse tensions after the Parliament attack in 2001 and the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008. However, preventing tensions from escalating is different from meditating on Kashmir or other bilateral issues, which Trump has been making claims and offers about. Yashee is an Assistant Editor with the where she is a member of the Explained team. She is a journalist with over 10 years of experience, starting her career with the Mumbai edition of Hindustan Times. She has also worked with India Today, where she wrote opinion and analysis pieces for DailyO. Her articles break down complex issues for readers with context and insight. Yashee has a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from Presidency College, Kolkata, and a postgraduate diploma in journalism from Asian College of Journalism, Chennai, one of the premier media institutes in the countr ... Read More


Indian Express
33 minutes ago
- Indian Express
After Operation Sindoor, India's strategic communication challenge
The interview given by Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on May 31 to a foreign news agency about Operation Sindoor has generated considerable interest and comment, both in India and abroad. It has also raised a few concerns — all for valid reasons. In response to a question about claims being made by Pakistan about India losing combat aircraft in the early stages of Op Sindoor, the CDS stated, 'What is important is not the jet being down, but why they were being downed.' While General Chauhan did not go into any specifics about the number of platforms lost in combat, he asserted that India had swiftly rectified its 'tactical mistakes' and resumed high-precision strikes at the designated targets, some deep within Pakistan. He added, 'What mistakes were made — those are important. Numbers are not important. The good part is that we were able to understand the tactical mistake which we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and flew our jets again, targeting at long range.' This has been interpreted as the first confirmation by the military leadership at the highest level that India lost some aircraft in Op Sindoor. It may be recalled that at the military briefing on May 11, conducted in Delhi soon after cessation of hostilities, the Air Force representative Air Marshal Bharti had responded to a similar question regarding fighter aircraft losses saying, 'We are in a combat scenario, losses are a part of combat. The question you must ask us is: Have we achieved our objective of decimating the terrorist camps? And the answer is a thumping yes.' Against this backdrop, the response of the CDS is pertinent and provides more tactical insights into the conduct of Op Sindoor. A reference was also made by General Chauhan to the nuclear threshold and how this was handled by Delhi. Any light shed on the role of the CDS in Op Sindoor would have been very valuable but this thread was not pursued. Professionals will study these remarks carefully, for Op Sindoor has many strands related to the conduct of a high-intensity conflict between two nuclear weapon capable states, both by way of strategic signaling and the narrative campaign that has acquired its own autonomy in the modern age. The global tenet now is that more than winning the war in the combat domain, the 'story war' must also be won. Perceptions have to be shaped in a favourable manner both in the domestic and international arena. Here, India has been put on the back foot; the CDS's remarks in Singapore have drawn attention to this vital component of national security. During combat, no nation divulges detailed tactical information, particularly about platform damage or loss. Indeed, while there was intense speculation about how many Rafale aircraft had been lost by India during Op Sindoor, the government kept silent. However it allowed some sections of the audio-visual media to engage in shrill triumphalism and ugly majoritarian nationalism, and to this was added some embroidered assessment by foreign sources. The net result was a further erosion of the credibility of the Indian media. A professional attribute that a nation ought to acknowledge and nurture with integrity is media credibility. The May 11 military briefing was professional and the question about loss of fighters had been addressed in a tangential manner. If the government wanted to confirm the fact that India had indeed lost some platforms, why was this not done in Delhi soon after the first briefing ? The delay added to the speculation and was avoidable. And if the CDS was identified as the senior most military officer to do so, then why in Singapore, and why to a foreign news agency and not an Indian one such as PTI? In my view, a professional briefing at a three-star level was adequate and further details could have been provided in Parliament as is the norm in democracies. The sharing of some factual tactical details is desirable to enhance credibility and be better positioned in the narrative battle. India has not been able to rise to this challenge and many questions have been asked, both on social media and by the opposition parties as to why such details were not provided in Parliament or by the Defence Minister. This leads one to infer that perhaps the CDS's remarks were not part of any script but spontaneous. If so, this is even more disappointing with respect to India's strategic communication acumen. The Pahalgam massacre took place on April 22 and Operation Sindoor was launched on May 7. Delhi, with its much vaunted Modi-led communication capabilities both in India and abroad, was aware that the Shangri-La Dialogue would take place in Singapore at the end of May. Was there a suitable strat com plan in place ? The remarks of the CDS would suggest otherwise. Operation Sindoor is in pause mode and the narrative battle continues. Trump's assertions regarding brokering a ceasefire have queered the pitch for Delhi. Fidelity to facts and transparency as behoves a democracy are critical in dealing with national security challenges. Galwan 2020 and Op Sindoor 2025 have many embedded lessons. The writer is director, Society for Policy Studies


Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
NATO east flank backs Ukraine membership, Poland, Romania and Lithuania say
VILNIUS -Nordic, Baltic and central European NATO members are committed to Ukrainian membership of the military alliance, the leaders of Poland, Romania and Lithuania said following a summit of the so-called B9 and Nordic countries on Monday. NATO allies declared their support for Ukraine's "irreversible path" towards membership at last year's Washington summit. But President Donald Trump has since said that prior U.S. support for Ukraine's NATO bid was a cause of the war and has further indicated that Ukraine will not get membership. Russian President Vladimir Putin's conditions for ending the war in Ukraine include a demand that Western leaders pledge in writing to stop enlarging NATO eastwards, and lift a chunk of sanctions on Russia, Reuters reported last week. Poland, Romania and Lithuania said on Monday, after a meeting of Nordic, Baltic and Eastern European leaders in the capital of Lithuania, that the region remains committed to the path towards Ukrainian NATO membership, and called for further pressure on Russia, including more sanctions. "We stand firm on Allied decision and commitment regarding Ukraine's irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership. Ukraine has the right to choose its own security arrangements and to decide its own future, free from outside interference," they said in a joint statement released on behalf of all meeting participants. The meeting, held ahead of a NATO summit at The Hague later this month, included Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Slovakia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.