Oh, so we're attaching labels now?

The CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, arrived in India and allowed himself to be photographed holding a placard that said “Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy”. Now, I’m not sure whether it was intentional or can be simply attributed to ignorance or incompetence. Irrespective of the reason, there’s no denying that it was terrible corporate PR.

I can understand the problem with patriarchy. Most human civilisations, as well as religions, have been guilty of it. Even the Code of Hammurabi emphasised the inferiority of women. Our own Manusmriti minced no words in this regard. Even the hero of one of my novels, Chanakya, was utterly guilty of it. And so are many current religions including Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Thus to brand it “Brahmanical patriarchy” seems a bit rich. 

According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word “Brahmanical” means “of or belonging to the highest Hindu caste, originally that of the priesthood.” So what’s the point of attaching the label Brahmanical as an adjective? Does patriarchy solely exist in Hindu society? Is there no patriarchy in other religions, regions or cultures? Why didn’t Jack Dorsey simply hold up a “Smash Patriarchy” signboard instead of one that said “Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy”.

When the world was busy bandying about the terms “Islamic Terror” and “Hindu Terror” our collective response, and rightly so, was “Why the labels?” But doesn’t that same logic apply to patriarchy too?

READ: As An Indian I Am Disappointed At Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's 'Smash Brahminical Patriarchy' Placard

No one disputes the existence of Brahmanical patriarchy over centuries. The question is whether the CEO of a platform whose largest growing market is India should be holding up a signboard that reflects a single point of view. And if he is truly concerned about patriarchy, should he not be talking about all forms of patriarchy without exclusions? Worse still, even if he was misled into holding up that sign, shouldn’t his organisation have clarified that he was misled and offer an unconditional apology? After all, aren’t those the very standards that Twitter holds users up to?

I truly wonder whether Jack Dorsey of Twitter would have had the courage to hold an anti-semitic signboard in the US, an anti-Islam poster in Saudi Arabia or a pro-democracy placard in China. Unfortunately, this terrible episode has exposed the inherent biases that exist in a platform that is supposed to remain largely neutral.

READ: Can Twitter Be A Socially Neutral Platform?

READ: Hate Posters, Promoting Hate By Twitter Is Not Acceptable