Post-Truth India: Where Perception Trumps Reality

In today’s India, the truth is often a casualty of perception, shaped by relentless narratives and amplified by a sophisticated propaganda machinery. The Bofors, 2G, and Commonwealth Games (CWG) controversies—once dubbed as monumental scams—stand as stark examples of how perception can overshadow judicial verdicts and cement a narrative in the public psyche. Despite courts clearing the Congress party of wrongdoing in these cases, the taint lingers, fueled by a well-orchestrated campaign from the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) IT cell and the broader Sanghi ecosystem. This is the essence of post-truth India, where perception is everything, and the truth is often irrelevant.

The Ghost of “Scams” That Weren’t

The Bofors scandal, dating back to the 1980s, involved allegations of kickbacks in a defense deal. The 2G spectrum case of 2012 was painted as a massive telecom scam, with the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) estimating a notional loss of ₹1.76 lakh crore. The CWG scam, also from the Congress-led UPA era, was portrayed as a case of gross mismanagement and corruption in the 2010 Commonwealth Games. These controversies dominated headlines, shaped public discourse, and became synonymous with Congress’s alleged corruption.
Yet, the courts told a different story. In 2005, the Delhi High Court quashed charges in the Bofors case, citing lack of evidence. The 2G case, after years of scrutiny, saw all accused, including former Telecom Minister A. Raja, acquitted in 2017 by a special CBI court, which found no proof of corruption or financial loss. Similarly, the CWG case resulted in no major convictions, with allegations fizzling out under judicial review. Legally, these were not scams. But in the court of public opinion, the Congress remains guilty.

Why Perception Persists

Why do most Indians remain unaware of these judicial outcomes? The answer lies in the BJP’s masterful control of the narrative, powered by its IT cell and a vast network of supporters often referred to as the “Sanghi ecosystem.” This ecosystem—comprising social media warriors, WhatsApp groups, pliable news channels, and influencers—has perfected the art of perception management. Through memes, viral videos, and selective outrage, they have ensured that the word “scam” remains indelibly linked to Congress, regardless of facts.
The BJP’s IT cell operates like a well-oiled machine, flooding digital spaces with content that reinforces negative stereotypes about Congress. X posts, for instance, frequently recycle old headlines about Bofors or 2G, conveniently omitting court verdicts. WhatsApp forwards amplify half-truths, while prime-time TV debates—often skewed in favor of the ruling party—keep the narrative alive. The sheer volume of this messaging drowns out any attempt to set the record straight.
Contrast this with the Congress’s response—or lack thereof. The party has struggled to counter this propaganda, lacking the organizational muscle or digital savvy to match the BJP’s outreach. If the roles were reversed, and the BJP faced similar allegations, it’s likely that their ecosystem would have ensured every Indian knew about the court’s exoneration. Street protests, viral campaigns, and hashtags would have dominated the discourse, turning judicial vindication into a public relations victory. The BJP’s numbers advantage—both in terms of supporters and resources—gives it an unmatched ability to shape perceptions.

The Post-Truth Era

This phenomenon reflects a deeper shift in Indian society: the rise of a post-truth era where emotions and narratives trump facts. In this landscape, the truth is malleable, shaped by whoever shouts the loudest or spends the most on digital campaigns. The Sanghi ecosystem thrives on this, leveraging its scale to create a reality where Congress is perpetually corrupt, and the BJP is the harbinger of a “New India.” The average Indian, bombarded with information and lacking the time or inclination to verify court judgments, accepts the dominant narrative.
This isn’t just about political rivalry; it’s about the erosion of truth as a public good. When judicial verdicts are buried under a deluge of propaganda, and when perception becomes more powerful than evidence, democracy suffers. The Bofors, 2G, and CWG cases are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a larger malaise where facts are secondary to feelings.

The Way Forward

To counter this, the Congress and other opposition parties must invest in their own narrative-building machinery. They need to harness digital platforms, engage younger audiences, and simplify complex judicial outcomes into compelling stories. More importantly, civil society and the media must play a role in amplifying the truth, challenging propaganda with facts, and fostering a culture of critical thinking.
India’s post-truth reality is a warning: when perception is everything, the truth becomes a mere footnote. The Bofors, 2G, and CWG sagas show how effectively a narrative can be weaponized. Unless countered with equal vigor, the Sanghi ecosystem’s loudness will continue to drown out the truth, leaving India in a haze of half-truths and manufactured outrage. In this New India, the battle for truth is as critical as ever—but it’s a battle the opposition is yet to fully join.

The Sanghi Ecosystem in India: A Study in Amplification and Influence

 In India’s hyper-connected digital age, information travels faster than ever before. But not all information spreads organically. Some narratives are propelled with precision, backed by a well-oiled machinery of ideology, membership, and money. The "Sanghi ecosystem," a term often used to describe the network of individuals, organizations, and media aligned with Hindutva ideology, has mastered this art of amplification. From WhatsApp forwards to prime-time debates, this ecosystem can transform a local incident into a national firestorm within hours, often before facts are fully verified. Its reach is vast, its methods relentless, and its impact profound. But what makes this ecosystem so powerful, and why does it seem to dominate India’s public discourse?

The Mechanics of Amplification

The Sanghi ecosystem thrives on scale and speed. With millions of supporters, ranging from grassroots volunteers to influential figures, it operates like a decentralized yet coordinated network. The process begins when an incident—often in an opposition-ruled state—catches the ecosystem’s attention. The criteria are specific: the issue must involve opposition leaders, evoke a sense of Hindu grievance, or, ideally, cast Muslims as culprits. Once identified, the incident is fed into a vast digital pipeline.

Social media platforms become the first battleground. WhatsApp groups, numbering in the thousands, circulate tailored messages—text, images, or videos—designed to provoke outrage. Twitter (now X), Instagram, Telegram, Reddit, and Quora see a surge of posts, often from accounts with large followings, amplifying the narrative. Hashtags trend, memes proliferate, and emotionally charged rhetoric dominates. Within hours, the issue spills into mainstream media. Prime-time TV debates on what critics call “Godi media” dissect the incident with fervor, while front-page newspaper headlines lend it gravitas. The cycle is relentless, feeding itself until the issue feels inescapable.

This rapid escalation leaves little room for pause. Ordinary citizens, bombarded with information from trusted sources—family chats, news channels, or social media influencers—are swept into the narrative. Verification becomes secondary to emotion. By the time police investigations or court proceedings begin, public opinion has often solidified, shaped by a trial-by-media that thrives on speed over substance.

The Ecosystem’s Reach: Beyond Digital Borders

What sets the Sanghi ecosystem apart is its ability to transcend the digital realm. It’s not just about viral posts or TV debates; the narrative infiltrates classrooms, workplaces, and institutions. UPSC coaching centers, a cornerstone of India’s aspirational culture, see teachers weave these issues into lectures, framing them as case studies or moral lessons. College professors, wittingly or not, bring the discourse into academic spaces, sparking debates among students. This offline amplification ensures the narrative isn’t confined to screens—it becomes part of everyday conversation.

The ecosystem’s strength lies in its membership. From small-town volunteers to urban professionals, its ranks include bureaucrats, lawyers, police officers, and even judges—individuals who wield institutional power. This creates a feedback loop where the ecosystem’s priorities influence governance itself. A police officer sympathetic to Hindutva might prioritize a high-profile case over others, fast-tracking investigations to align with public outrage. Courts, under pressure from media scrutiny and public sentiment, may expedite hearings. The result is a system that feels responsive to the ecosystem’s demands, reinforcing its narrative of justice delivered.

Selective Outrage and Narrative Control

Critics argue that the Sanghi ecosystem doesn’t amplify every injustice—it cherry-picks those that fit a specific agenda. Incidents that don’t align with its ideological framework—say, those involving Hindu perpetrators or occurring in BJP-ruled states—rarely achieve the same virality. This selective outrage shapes public perception, creating an impression that certain communities or leaders are perpetually at fault. The ecosystem’s ability to frame Muslims as culprits or opposition leaders as complicit amplifies divisive narratives, often drowning out calls for nuance or fairness.

This isn’t to say the issues raised are always baseless. Wrongdoings deserve condemnation, and public awareness can drive accountability. But the ecosystem’s approach often bypasses due process, favoring spectacle over scrutiny. By the time counter-narratives emerge—say, a police report debunking initial claims or a court ruling providing clarity—the public has moved on, leaving the original narrative entrenched.

The Power of Money and Numbers

The Sanghi ecosystem’s dominance stems from its resources. Organizations like the RSS, with millions of members and a sprawling network of affiliates, provide logistical and financial muscle. Wealthy donors and corporate backers fuel media campaigns, while tech-savvy operatives ensure digital dominance. This financial clout allows the ecosystem to outspend and outmaneuver rivals, whether liberal or Islamist networks, which lack comparable scale or coordination.

Numbers matter too. The sheer volume of supporters—active across platforms, professions, and regions—creates a multiplier effect. A single WhatsApp forward can reach millions in hours, each share amplifying the signal. Compare this to fragmented opposition voices, often divided by ideology or region, and the Sanghi ecosystem’s edge becomes clear. It’s not just about influence—it’s about overwhelming the information space.

The Double-Edged Sword

The ecosystem’s efficiency is a sight to behold, but it’s not without flaws. Its reliance on speed can backfire, spreading misinformation before facts are clear. High-profile cases, like the 2020 Hathras incident or the 2022 Hijab controversy, saw initial narratives unravel under scrutiny, denting credibility. Yet, the ecosystem’s resilience—its ability to pivot to the next issue—means setbacks rarely slow it down.

For India’s democracy, this raises tough questions. A system that can mobilize millions to highlight injustice is powerful, but when it prioritizes ideology over truth, it risks polarizing society. The Sanghi ecosystem’s ability to set the agenda, often unchallenged, underscores the need for counterweights—independent media, fact-checkers, and institutions insulated from populist pressure. Without these, the ecosystem’s free pass to shape narratives could erode trust in due process itself.

Conclusion: A Call for Reflection

The Sanghi ecosystem is a masterclass in modern influence, blending ideology, technology, and institutional clout to dominate India’s public sphere. Its ability to make any issue a national talking point within 48 hours is unmatched, driven by a vast membership and deep pockets. But with great power comes responsibility. Amplifying selective narratives at breakneck speed can distort justice as much as it demands it. For India’s citizens, navigating this ecosystem requires vigilance—pausing to verify, questioning outrage, and seeking truth beyond the noise. Only then can discourse remain a tool for unity, not division.