Digital mobilisation is not enough…

6th October 2018, Caravan Magazine: “How social media was vital to rescue efforts during the Kerala floods”

13th November 2020, Livemint: “Saving Mollem with Art and Hashtags” 

2nd May 2021, Indian Express: “Helping Handles: How social media and youth stood hand-in-hand as a digital COVID helpline”

In April 2020, when we were in the middle of our first and most severe lockdown, a lot of important and consequential changes were implemented by the government regarding industry, infrastructure, and environment in the country. Perhaps because the fear of the novel coronavirus was the only thing occupying centre stage in public concern and discourse, many of these changes went unnoticed. One such decision was the National Wildlife Board’s approval of 16 infrastructure projects that would destroy sections of many national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. The impact of this decision was most strongly felt in Goa, where three new electricity and roadways projects targeted the sanctity of Mollem National Park. The decision was one that had to be contested, but any collective action against it in a public space would now be a violation of social distancing guidelines and a threat to personal and public health. Even the recent protests against the CAA had died down, or rather been shut down, under the guise of controlling the pandemic.

I remember reading about this in the news and wondering how any protest could be carried out while the pandemic lasted. But I didn’t have to wait long to find out; within a hours I started seeing #SaveMollem creep up onto my instagram. There were short informational videos and image series outlining what these new measures were, how they were harmful to the environment, and what action was necessary to prevent such harm. I soon realised that these were not isolated attempts to raise awareness by a few interested individuals but an organised and sustained campaign by a group of youth who were using social media to fight the decision. The posts on social media were accompanied by petitions on different portals, mass emails sent out to individuals in positions of power, informational webinars, and the use of art and music to gain further momentum. This campaign succeeded in mobilising many different sections of society; students, teachers, scientists, lawyers, artists, and political parties, among others. It has even garnered international attention, which has increased pressure on the government to reconsider their decisions. 

Another common use of digital media as a platform for mobilisation is during natural disasters such as floods or cyclones. During the Kerala floods in 2018, for instance, social media was flooded with posts that were trying to provide relief in different ways. Digital platforms were used as a means to raise funds, coordinate rescue efforts on the ground, gain attention for the crisis at the national level, and spread awareness about different ways to help. I remember seeing not only my friends and following share posts about the situation, but also many celebrities participating in campaigns such as #StandWithKerala, #DoForKerala, and the #KeralaDonation challenge, all dedicated to raising funds and awareness. These campaigns were successful in bringing in donations, both from people living in India as well as many people living abroad, to the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund, raising funds to provide those in need with food, clothes, and other essentials, and identifying the details and location of those who needed immediate aid. 

I think the most well-known experience of social media as a relief and mobilization platform during crises has been during the second wave of COVID in India. Almost simultaneously, as if a bomb had dropped, news of tragedy and crisis from across the country started flooding in. My social media was gripped by anecdotes of oxygen shortage in Delhi, where I study, and hospital beds shortage in Bangalore, where I live. Similar stories of shortage began trickling in from the people I know in other parts of the country as well. However, unlike the first wave, where the majority of my feed was only uncertainty regarding the future and a whole lot of fear caused by the present, this time, the news of crises was accompanied by a wave of efforts to ameliorate the situation. For every person posting an urgent call for help for a family member, there was someone rapidly verifying leads and sharing confirmed sources of help. So many people I knew were forming volunteer groups, or joining existing ones, to verify leads for plasma, oxygen, hospital beds, and other necessities that were in short supply. So many friends spent hours every day, endlessly calling place after place just to confirm one lead for one family in need. 

This collective action went beyond helping individual families as well. At the beginning of May, I remember reading that St. John’s hospital, in Bangalore, had used online fundraising to buy oxygen and food for all patients and staff. A few weeks later, Shri Ram College of Commerce and other colleges in Delhi used similar means to set up oxygen plants and COVID care centres on their campuses. Across the country, digital mobilisation was used as a tool to procure and coordinate infrastructure, funds, and volunteers to help mitigate the crisis in different ways. 

The use of digital media for collective mobilisation has, I believe, many strengths. The many different times groups have used this strategy have demonstrated that it brings about concrete change – it actually gets things done. In almost every case, it has succeeded in raising money, identifying those who need help, or whatever else the goal may be. It has also immensely succeeded in raising awareness and starting conversations about subjects that may otherwise be ignored or unnoticed. News and updates regarding the situation reaches people across the country and across the world and often highlights facts that may be ignored by mainstream media. Digital platforms as a medium for mobilisation were especially useful, I think, during the pandemic, as physical mobilisation is now something that is considered dangerous, both to oneself and to the general public. The digital realm then provides a space for those who wish to contribute to do so without endangering anyone’s health. 

However, I also feel it might be a little naive to only glorify digital collectivisation without recognising the limitations of it. I think the biggest consideration that needs to be acknowledged is that digital mobilisation is not enough. It is definitely one step towards achieving one’s ends, and definitely a very important and valuable step, but it cannot be seen as the only step. In almost every case, it needs to be supplemented by other actions. For instance, in the Save Mollem movement, the online campaign was supplemented with petitions to the High Court, conversations with MLAs, and on-ground collaboration between scientists, lawyers, tourism operators and local politicians. 

These additional steps are important because often, digital mobilisation does not address the root cause of the issue. It helps mitigate or improve the situation but does not remove the root cause of the issue. While it is definitely a valuable component of the cure, it does not contribute to prevention. This is where the importance of other actions comes in – they help to address the root cause of the problem. For instance, with regard to the current COVID crisis, online mobilisation helped to cure the situation by providing relief and aid to those facing crises. It did not in any way address or improve the root causes of the crises, which are deep structural failings in the country’s public health infrastructure. It is only changes in governance, policy, and practice in the public health sector which can help to prevent this issue. 

Finally, and quite obviously, it does not include large sections of society, especially in the Indian context. Of course, economically underprivileged sections who do not have access to technology or the internet are, unfortunately, automatically excluded. However, what is less recognised is that even among those who have access, there are many barriers to inclusion. These could be obvious barriers, such as language, or more insidious ones, such as being contained within digital echo chambers where everyone you know and follow only speaks about certain issues and viewpoints while ignoring others. A valuable approach, I’ve found, to working through this is to move these conversations offline as well and engage with the contents of these campaigns through real life conversations with people who perhaps are not exposed to them online. 

I’m sure the use of digital media as a tool for collectivisation will only increase in the coming months and years, and will continuously evolve and adapt to the situation on the ground. As I described above, I definitely believe it has many strengths and merits, but I also do think one needs to remain conscious of the limitations, not at all to fight against the use of digital media but only to mitigate and compensate for these limitations so that it can be strengthened as a tool for mobilisation. 

More Conversations