Manufactured Narratives at Work : The Toolkits have arrived for the woke

When Outrage Meets Selective Silence

This blog is a response to a woke tweet that appeared the day after the BJP’s electoral victory in West Bengal. The author of that tweet—a film director from Kerala—certainly has every right to express her views as a citizen. What is deeply troubling, however, is the nature of those views: emotionally charged, selectively framed, and ultimately divisive.

The statement that truly shocks the conscience is her suggestion to “disenfranchise non-BJP voters.” In a democracy, this is not just a flawed argument—it is a dangerous one. The rights that were taken away from voting were all mostly illegal votes that were baked into the system unconstitutionally over a decade.

The Question She Avoided

Why did so many people vote against the TMC?

This is the central question—one that her commentary completely sidesteps.

What about the widely reported incidents in Sandeshkhali, where women were subjected to horrific violence—gang rape, harassment, public humiliation? These are not abstract allegations; they are deeply disturbing accounts that shook public conscience. To ignore them while moralizing about electoral outcomes is not just an oversight—it is willful silence.

While Kashmir has historically witnessed brutal conflict, what unfolded under TMC rule, many argue, struck at something equally profound—the dignity and self-respect of communities. The erosion of that dignity became a political reality voters could not ignore.

There were also calls for stronger constitutional intervention, including discussions around Article 356 of the Constitution of India. However, with political backing from parties such as Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Aam Aadmi Party, Indian National Congress, and Samajwadi Party, such action was not constitutionally viable.

Could the central government have done more? Perhaps. But in a democracy, options are constrained—especially when state institutions, including the police, are widely perceived to be compromised.

What is harder to reconcile, however, is the normalization of such violence by sections of society. My outrage is not just directed at political actors, but also at fellow Bengalis who witnessed these developments and yet chose silence.

And here lies the most striking contradiction: a woman in a position of influence failed to show empathy toward fellow women who suffered. That silence speaks volumes.

The Convenient Logic on Elections

The next claim—that the Election Commission is a “puppet”—collapses under basic scrutiny.

Consider this: in Kerala, her home state, the BJP secured limited success. In neighboring Tamil Nadu, even less. In Karnataka, a state once considered a stronghold, electoral dominance could not be sustained.

So what exactly is the argument?

When results align with one’s expectations, elections are “free and fair.” When they do not, they are “rigged.” This is not analysis—it is convenience masquerading as principle. If one wishes to critique the Election Commission of India, it must be done with evidence, not selective acceptance.

Judiciary and Selective Expectations

Another criticism centers on judicial “non-intervention.”

But intervention requires grounds.

These elections were, by most accounts, significantly more controlled, with many identified disruptors reportedly prevented from influencing the process. Longstanding concerns about illegal cross-border movements from Bangladesh—including allegations of voter identity acquisition—have been part of public discourse for years, even extending to states like Karnataka.

If one remained silent when such concerns were raised earlier, why demand judicial activism now—particularly when the electoral process itself was relatively peaceful?

There were moments when intervention might have been more relevant—during earlier instances of political violence, some of which have been documented in court proceedings involving individuals such as Shahjahan Sheikh.

Selective outrage weakens credibility.

The Idea of a Secular Socialist Republic

India is constitutionally defined as a secular socialist republic, a framework meant to ensure equality, dignity, and justice for all citizens—irrespective of religion, class, or background. Secularism, in its true sense, does not mean selective sensitivity or appeasement; it demands neutrality and fairness across the board. Socialism, similarly, was intended to reduce inequality and uplift the marginalized—not to create political silos or vote banks. When these foundational principles are invoked only in fragments or to be straight only against Hindus, or applied inconsistently, they lose their meaning and become tools of convenience rather than pillars of governance. If we are to take these ideals seriously, they must be upheld uniformly—especially when it is uncomfortable to do so.

The Politics of Otherization

What we ultimately see is a familiar pattern: otherization.

Group dissenting voices together. Reduce complex political behavior into identity blocks. Frame entire communities—particularly Hindu voters—as monolithic and suspect. This is not analysis; it is narrative engineering.

For a more grounded perspective, one might revisit Pakistan or the Partition of India by B. R. Ambedkar. His writings, while rooted in a different historical moment, grapple directly with the complexities of religious and social divisions. He was also sharply critical of certain missionary strategies and their long-term social implications as how they had to leave the educated Indians and resort to convert the vulnerable poor who were made poorer by their loot at the first place. He was very clear with his criticism on christians and muslims and had not support of any kind to them. 

A Call for Honest Debate

If there is to be a debate, let it be grounded in facts.

Not selective memory.
Not emotional manipulation.
Not narratives designed to divide rather than understand.

For decades, certain voices have shaped discourse with little resistance. That space is now being questioned. And that is not a threat—it is a sign of a maturing democracy.

If you wish to engage, do so with evidence, consistency, and accountability.

Anything less is not debate. It is deflection.