Charges quashed against Twitter’s Jack Dorsey for holding poster. More CEOs must speak up now

Many conservatives and Right-wing Indians were outraged that the Twitter CEO, in his visit to India, held a poster against brahmanical patriarchy. He had every right to.

In the midst of COVID-19 and lockdown measures, a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan went unnoticed on 7 April 2020. The judgment had effectively quashed the criminal case filed against journalist Anna MM Vetticad and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in the matter relating to Dorsey holding up a poster captioned ‘Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy’. The controversies surrounding the photograph of Dorsey holding up the poster may have finally been given quietus, but larger and more uncomfortable questions remain unresolved. Questions which cannot be answered judicially and will determine the moral direction of the country.

Soon after the photograph of Dorsey holding up the poster, originally designed by social activist Thenmozhi Soundarajan, was posted on Twitter by Vetticad on 18 November 2018, it created quite a stir. While some saw it as a photograph of a man holding a poster, privileged Twitterati hyperventilated at Dorsey for “demonology of Brahmins” and compared this with “what the Nazis did to the Jews”. Those who are now familiar as right wing debaters on television medium, unhappy with Twitter as a medium, wondered if Government is “serious about replacement” and why Dorsey “would align with any group”. 

The Twitteratis’ case against the CEO of Twitter and the poster was that the slogan “Brahmanical Patriarchy” offended religious sentiments, targeted Brahmins – who are a minority in India – and constituted hate speech against this community. Almost immediately, 44-year old resident of Jodhpur, Rajkumar Sharma approached the Police Station Basni on 19 November 2018 to register a First Information Report (F.I.R). In his complaint, Sharma alleged that Dorsey and Vetticad had “maligned the Brahmin society at large” and induced “religious hatred towards the Brahmin community”. The police initially refused to register the F.I.R and Sharma approached the Commissioner of Police and then the local Magistrate. Finally, the F.I.R was registered under the Indian Penal Code for offences including defamation, conspiracy and acts intended to outrage religious feelings. 

Quashing the F.I.R, the High Court of Rajasthan has held that the term “Brahmanical Patriarchy” refers to a sociological concept which has no direct link with the “religious sentiments of any section of society” and cannot be construed as ‘hurting the religious sentiments” or as creating “a religion based rift” in society It goes on to say that the poster conveys the feeling of “being strongly opposed to the Brahmanical Patriarchical system”. Though the judgment does not quote socio-political authorities, the logic it conveys is derived from the discourse laid out by Babasaheb Ambedkar and more recently, interpreted by feminist scholars such as Uma Chakravarti and Sharmila Rege. Ambedkar has explained his position in 1938 as such:

“By Brahmanism, I do not mean the power, privileges and interests of Brahmins as a community. That is not the sense in which I am using the word. By Brahmanism, I mean the negation of the spirit of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” 

Chakravarti defines Brahmanical Patriarchy as “the need for effective sexual control over women to maintain not only patrilineal succession but also caste purity, the institution unique to Hindu society”. Through her work, Chakravarti has sought to develop a feminist analysis of caste inequaities. In her book ‘Against the Madness of Manu’, Rege speaks about the surge of Dalit feminist scholarship in unravelling Brahmanical Patriarchy which builds on Chakravarti’s academic work. In no sense, can this seen as anything but an evidence-based and academically established sociological discourse. Though, it is unsurprising that the entire controversy was manufactured by the Indian right wing forward caste elites, it was shocking to see Twitter, as an organization, unravel under the weight of these events. Twitter’s Legal, Policy and Trust & Safety Lead, Vijaya Gadde, issued an apology and said that the poster was not “reflective” of the company’s views. 

Twitter, like many other businesses in recent times, has largely remained silent in expressing their social or political views. But, Dorsey has been known to have taken political positions before. He has spoken on Arab Spring and Black Lives Matter. In India, it is rare for business leaders to speak out on political issues. We have not heard Indian business leaders articulate against the establishment position on Article 370 or Citizenship Amendment Act. On issues involving the intersection of caste and gender, we have not heard anyone speak out. What prevents our business icons from taking positions in favour of gender equality and social justice is not known. 

Do they a fear of a backlash from the conservative sections, as witnessed in the present controversy? Have they been tutored to stay out politically sensitive issues? Can we expect corporate and cultural icons to take a position on issues which affect the social fabric of the country?  

What irked right wing Indian Twitter was that a young and woke global business icon had taken a stand on a deeply divisive issue inherent to our country. What riled them further is that diverse, feminist and subaltern voices rose across Indian Twitter supporting and trending the hashtag #SmashBrahmanicalPatriarchy. The High Court judgment validates and empowers such voices. Now is the time to move the needle on addressing caste and gender issues across India; and for woke leaders, media bosses, corporate trailblazers and feminist influencers to confront Brahmanical Patriarchy within their organizations and society at large. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Spokesperson, DMK and Advocate practicing at the Madras High Court 

Link to the Article: https://theprint.in/opinion/charges-quashed-against-twitters-jack-dorsey-for-holding-poster-more-ceos-must-speak-up-now/404919/