Visibility with Weapons: Digital Vigilantism, Majority Power, and the Politics of Citizenship
Vigilante justice in India is nothing new. Time and again, the public has made it its mission to identify, threaten and punish alleged violations of the law or morals. This practice can be partly attributed to the lack of responsiveness of state institutions such as the police and judiciary. This has made certain forms of vigilantism within society legitimate and understandable. One such form is the vigilante justice of right-wing actors in pursuit of their political goals.
There has been a rise in right-wing nationalism and vigilantism in recent years. Since 2014 there have been cases of vigilance of cows have increased enormously, so much so that in 2018 the Supreme Court had to do this intervene and issue guidelines to curb such violence.
Through the routine, everyday acts of vigilantism associated with state inaction and/or collusion, a template for outrage, intimidation and retaliation has emerged as an important tool in Hindutva’s repertoire of violence.
Sana Jaffrey, director of the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict in Jakarta, argues that vigilantism in India has become a prominent bottom-up method used by right-wing actors to dismantle democratic protections and minority rights while reinforcing Hindutva majoritarianism. In her Paper 2021She said: “Vigilantism is proving to be an attractive strategy outside the system to restore everyday ideas of right and wrong in society and to pave the way for legislation that can formally adapt the law to a narrow, majoritarian vision of the nation.”
Through the routine, everyday acts of vigilantism associated with state inaction and/or collusion, a template for outrage, intimidation and retaliation has emerged as an important tool in Hindutva’s repertoire of violence.
Gender and sexuality are, in most cases, the determining factor in these moral, religious and cultural transgressions. Issues of chastity, cultural purity, and sexual propriety underlie the fear of vigilantism. Consequently, women and other sexual and gender minorities (SGM) who cross moral boundaries and are identified as deviants, whether through their relationships, political participation or public presence, become particularly vulnerable to vigilante practices.
These transgressions are not only gendered and sexual in nature, but also the forms through which punishment is imagined and implemented. Sexual violence, rape threats and other forms of gender-based intimidation become mechanisms through which obedience is enforced and dissent is silenced. In this way, gendered and sexualized bodies and identities become sites for the performance and reproduction of the Hindutva majoritarian order and its boundaries.
Digital vigilantism: armed visibility, surveillance and violence
As internet-enabled mobile media has become ubiquitous, vigilante practices have been complemented by the growing prevalence of social media platforms. This has changed the way vigilante groups organize violence, how it is perpetrated and the impact it has, particularly on women and SGM, around whom the moral politics of vigilante violence largely revolves.
In his Paper 2017Daniel Trottier distinguishes digital vigilantism from conventional vigilantism, arguing that the former weaponizes the visibility afforded by contemporary cultures of datafication and digitization. By leveraging the power of social media platforms and the media practices of the citizens around them, digital vigilantes increase the visibility of their targets. This (hyper)visibility is unprompted and intense. The possibilities of social media also mean that this visibility is more permanent and persistent than before, as are its consequences for target groups. Digital media therefore offers vigilant boundary-drawing practices an enormous communicative infrastructure.
The prevailing structures of datafication and digitalization as well as emerging surveillance cultures make this visibility even more difficult. They result in what Mark Andrejevic calls lateral or peer-to-peer surveillance.
As these technological advances interact with citizens and their broader relationship with state institutions, they complicate state-citizen relations, albeit with different and unequal consequences for different parts of society. First, the visibility and control they invite are not equally distributed among everyone. Women and SGM, who have historically been denied recognition as legitimate subjects of public speech, are often subject to greater scrutiny. The intense trolling and harassment from queer participants in the CJP protestbased solely on their gender and sexual identity, illustrates this dynamic. For some, the very act of taking up space, speaking up, and being legible not only represents “empowerment,” but also brings with it confrontation with new forms of violence. Visibility thus becomes Janus-faced in digital public cultures.
The prevailing structures of datafication and digitalization as well as emerging surveillance cultures make this visibility even more difficult. They lead to what Mark Andrejevic did in his Paper from 2005is called lateral or peer-to-peer monitoring. In a political culture in which any opposition, disagreement, or protest is quickly labeled a security risk, risk becomes metonymic. “Anti-national” can enter and take hold in the body of a Muslim citizen, a protester, a queer person, or an immigrant.
In a culture of heightened distrust and increased risk, the logic of surveillance, tracking and monitoring penetrates to the lowest level. “Legitimate” citizens take it upon themselves to remain vigilant and recognize risks. Thus, digital vigilantism not only involves peer-to-peer surveillance in digital cultures, but also creates a vigilant public and divisive sensibilities along majority lines. It is a communicative, public and political act at the same time.
Digital vigilantism confounds the online-offline dichotomy. By making the identities of its targets hypervisible, it can generate forms of violence that move across and between digital and embodied spaces.
Digital vigilantism confounds the online-offline dichotomy. By making the identities of its targets hypervisible, it can generate forms of violence that move across and between digital and embodied spaces. Doxxing, for example, goes beyond simply violating an individual’s privacy. Disclosure and sharing of personal information can expose individuals and communities to risk embodied violenceAt the same time, they make their identities available for further classification and profiling based on characteristics such as caste, religion, gender, sexuality, etc. These classifications can influence how communities are perceived and treated and how they are granted access to social opportunities and resources, thereby affecting their life chances.
Digital vigilantism can transform lateral surveillance into processes of social sortingthrough which certain topics are made visible as deviant, threatening and immoral. Social sorting can, in turn, facilitate cultural violence by distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate citizens, creating the impression that some individuals and communities deserve more surveillance, exposure, and punishment than others. Privacy violations thus become politically consequential because they can contribute to a subject’s cultural production as a legitimate target of collective sanction. They can thereby legitimize further structural and direct violence.
The technological infrastructure of digital platforms further changes the temporal and spatial boundaries of vigilantism. Unlike many traditional forms of punishment, digital footprints can remain searchable, reproducible and retrievable long after the initial confrontational episode has ended. Images, accusations, and identifying information can circulate across platforms and be continually recontextualized, allowing the stigma attached to an individual or community to persist in public memory. Shame and fear can become permanent conditions.
Digital vigilantism and state power
As a form of non-state violence, digital vigilante justice does not necessarily replace or represent state violence. In certain situations, it can even reproduce and supplement it. When digital vigilante justice is organized around national, ethnic, or religious identities, it can strengthen majoritarian discourse and expand surveillance cultures. For example, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 2021 initiated a program through which citizens could voluntarily report “anti-national” online content. Such government-led initiatives blur the line between citizen vigilance and government surveillance.
Digital vigilance itself becomes a form of citizenship while tightening state control over digital spaces. The chilling effect of such vigilantism weakens the freedoms and freedoms necessary to challenge a hegemonic majoritarian order. In this way, non-state digital vigilantism in India complements forms of The digital authoritarianism practiced by the statesuch as internet shutdowns, surveillance, censorship and other mechanisms that facilitate control over citizens through digital technologies.
Digital vigilantism can therefore be understood as a change in the conditions under which majority power is exercised today. This is where the technological possibilities of the platforms, the media practices of citizens and existing power relations around religion, caste, gender, sexuality and citizenship intersect. Combating digital vigilantism is about who can act as a legitimate citizen, what can appear as legitimate dissent, who can occupy public space, and whose presence can go unpunished.
Bhumika pants holds a Masters in Political Science from the University of Delhi. Having lived at the grassroots level as an SBI YFI fellow, she is interested in people’s lived experiences and their intersection with gender, technology and politics.
