Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR) Calls out Facebook as Being an Enabler of Hindu Nationalist Propaganda Politics
September 14, 2020
Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,
We represent the Indian American diaspora dedicated to upholding the values of democracy, secularism in India. Collectively, we firmly believe in upholding human rights in our communities, not just India, and hence the news of Facebook being the digital enabler of furthering crimes against minorities raises serious concern, along with the fact of Facebook top policy executives having close ties with BJP.
On August 14 , “The Wall Street Journal” (WSJ) broke a story titled “Facebook’s Hate-Speech Rules Collide With Indian Politics”, states that Ankhi Das, Facebook’s top public policy executive in India opposed applying hate speech rules to at least four individuals and groups linked with BJP despite being flagged internally for inciting or partaking in violence so as not to hurt the company’s business prospects in India.
In 2019, NGO Avaaz raised concerns over the objectionable video of a drugged woman being raped, that was shared by Assam MLA Shiladitya Dev, who belongs to the ruling BJP party, with an assertion that this was an example of how Bangladeshi Muslims target our women. The concern was shrugged off as unworthy of time and the post stayed on for more than a year until recently when Facebook was contacted by news outlets. Interestingly, similar claims by Kapil Mishra were marked as hate speech by the same portal recently.
In this respect, we request Facebook to consistently apply it’s own community standards against hate speech which prohibit “direct attack on people based on … national origin, religious affiliation”. In particular, Facebook must apply this globally, that’s based on the highest ethical standards, over and above the prevalent majoritarian sentiment, or the minimum requirement of the local law, in that particular country. Timely application of global standards against hate speech is not only the right thing, but will also save lives in countries where law enforcement is complicit in violence against minorities, and every hour such hate speech remains online, costs lives. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. We commend Facebook for denying T. Raja Singh, who features in the WSJ story, denying access to your platform. Surely, if this step had been taken earlier, it would’ve proved a bigger deterrent against misuse of your platform.
There are also serious concerns of conflicting interests when it comes to Facebook operations in India. Mr. Shivanath Thukral, the chief of FB operations in India who deemed Dev’s post as unworthy of time, had previously worked on behalf of BJP and yet was donned with the responsibility of deciding the fate of political posts. In a series of coincidences that are hard to be ignored, Ankhi Das’s sister is a former JNU President of the student wing of BJP (Current ruling party in India). Also Ankhi Das attends sessions at RSS office, the right wing political outfit in India that raises concerns of the objectivity of the decisions. Our recommendation to Facebook is to separate the responsibility of applying it’s community standards from the responsibility of liaising with government officials. These two responsibilities have inherent conflicts that will result in Facebook inadvertently sacrificing it’s long term corporate objectives to short-term success.
In February, New Delhi, the capital city of India witnessed the horrific pogrom where Muslims were killed by mobs abetted by cops. This reprehensible incident that claimed 53 lives has been marked as merely a hate crime. There is evidence that what transpired in Delhi was a pogrom and denying that fact encourages another one. More recently on Aug 5, inflammatory posts against Prophet Muhammad that were not immediately removed, circulated widely, culminating in Bangalore Riots that left 3 dead.
We wish to have a dialogue with you and team members with the sole intent of finding and contributing to some solutions in tackling the menace of hate speech and propaganda with fake news.
Providing a platform to reprehensible ideas inciting murder converts freedom of speech to freedom of reach amplifying these ideas and making it easier to target victims. The ultimate aim of a society is a place where people are not targeted, murdered and killed for who they pray, love or believe in, and are free to make their choices. The ease of spreading hate speeches by digital platforms has furthered divisiveness in Indian society, where individuals are harassed, targeted and killed for their beliefs.
Innovation thrives only in a society where respect for diversity, particularly religious faith, is widely upheld. The birth of Facebook, and the innovation it fosters, is a testament to the validity of this principle. Facebook’s continued financial success, and it’s ability to attract innovative employee talent in the future will depend on the earnestness with which it follows this. We only wish that Facebook, with its actions, will live up to the principle of the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative:
“We believe in a world where every person can thrive with dignity.”
Sincerely,
Board of Directors,
Hindus for Human Rights
PS: Hindus for Human Rights is also a signatory to the petitions from Indian American Muslim Council and India Civil Watch.
