The TLDR: A Wall Street investigation shows that the company may have refused to ban Bajrang Dal—even though it qualified as a ‘dangerous organisation’ under its rules—because it was afraid for the safety of its India offices and staff. This revelation comes on the heels of a previous WSJ scoop that showed its then policy chief Ankhi Das intervened to protect other Hindutva groups, claiming it would hurt Facebook’s interests in the country. We explain what happened—and place it in the broader context of Facebook’s big bet on Reliance and the Indian market. 

Quick background

Back in August, a WSJ investigation—based on interviews with former and current employees—showed that the company’s Public Policy Director, Ankhi Das, intervened to prevent action against Hindutva BJP leaders. These included:

• T. Raja Singh who has called for the killing of Rohingya Muslim immigrants, labeled Muslims as traitors and declared that those who kill cows should be slaughtered, as well.
• Anantkumar Hegde who has accused Muslims of waging a Corona Jihad—i.e. deliberately spreading the virus.
• Kapil Mishra who posted a video—threatening anti-CAA protesters in Delhi—which triggered targeted violence that left at least 36 Muslims dead. 

Company sources told WSJ that Das “opposed applying the hate-speech rules to Mr. Singh and at least three other Hindu nationalist individuals and groups flagged internally for promoting or participating in violence.” 

Also this: Her double standards are “part of a broader pattern of favoritism by Facebook toward Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party and Hindu hard-liners.” As we explained in detail in August, the company’s close relationship with the BJP dates back to Candidate Modi’s first run for PM in 2014.

So what happened now?

According to unnamed company sources, earlier this year, Facebook’s safety team concluded that Bajrang Dal supported violence against minorities and qualified as a “dangerous organization.” And it concluded that it should be banned. 

A separate report filed by the security team claimed that cracking down on Bajrang Dal will risk “infuriating India’s ruling Hindu nationalist politicians.” Also: “banning Bajrang Dal might precipitate physical attacks against Facebook personnel or facilities.” The security team issued similar warnings against cracking down two other Hindutva groups: Sanatan Sanstha and Sri Ram Sena. 

The outcome: was that Facebook did nothing:

“At Facebook, the review of the group had been listed as ‘blocked’ for most of the year in its internal project management system, a label that usually meant that work had stopped, people familiar with the matter said. A note from an employee in Facebook’s internal task management system, described to the Journal by people who saw it, recommended that a ban not occur ‘due to complexities’ arising from Bajrang Dal’s political affiliations.”

Why is this a big deal?

The policy: The decision to give Bajrang Dal and others a pass violates clearly articulated company policy. Here’s how FB defines ‘dangerous individuals and organisations’:

“In an effort to prevent and disrupt real-world harm, we do not allow any organisations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence to have a presence on Facebook. This includes organisations or individuals involved in the following: Terrorist activity; organised hate; mass murder (including attempts) or multiple murder; human trafficking; organised violence or criminal activity. We also remove content that expresses support or praise for groups, leaders or individuals involved in these activities.” 

Bajrang Dal: clearly violates the bit about ‘organised hate’. 

• WSJ cites a video posted in June by its activists which shows them vandalising a church—and the local Bajrang Dal leader boasting: “I and other Hindu brothers came here and forcefully re-established the temple.” The video was taken down by the company soon after WSJ asked about it. 
• This is just the latest in a long pattern of such activities: In 2015, activists broke the holy cross and installed a Hanuman idol in another such church in Haryana, and threatened the life of the pastor (identified as Bajrang Dal here). 
• More recently, its members destroyed a church-shaped film set in Kerala, and the local police charged them with “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion”—an assessment Facebook apparently doesn’t share.
• For more: The Hindu has a good overview of the organisation’s roots, ideology and track record.

The kicker: is buried deep in the WSJ story:

“Facebook’s human-rights staff have internally designated India a ‘Tier One’ country, meaning it is at the highest risk of societal violence and therefore requires heightened efforts by the company to protect vulnerable populations, according to people familiar with the matter. This ranks it alongside Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Facebook staff’s designation of India hasn’t previously been reported.”

Ok, so this is like that Tanishq ad…

Yes, there are similarities. The Tatas pulled the ad—which showed a Hindu-Muslim couple—citing justifiable worries about the safety of its staff and jewellery outlets (explained here). One can argue that Facebook may have made the same call, but without publicising the reason. 

Of course, this raises the bigger question: Are multinationals in India any less vulnerable to bullying than Indian companies?

Are they?

Likely not, especially in the case of Facebook, and for two good reasons:

The jodi with Jio: In April, Mark Zuckerberg shelled out $5.7 billion for a 9.9% stake in Ambani’s digital arm Jio Platforms. One reason: Facebook has the largest number of users in India, and bhaichara with Mukesh-bhai ensures that it won’t be kicked out a la TikTok. The bigger reason: The 400 million users on WhatsApp. 

As Bloomberg News notes, integrating that messaging muscle into a gargantuan Jio online retail platform will deliver a ‘super app’ of its dreams: 

“The social media empire needs new markets to keep growing. Despite learning Mandarin and making multiple trips to China, the world’s biggest market remains out of Zuckerberg’s grasp. India is the next best thing, especially now that Ambani has made it accessible by forcing down data charges and offering cheap handsets and services in Indian languages.

 

Customers in China and Indonesia have shown a preference for superapps, which allow people to interact with an umbrella brand for everything from chatting with friends to booking cabs and managing money. Ambani could be best-suited to try the model in India, especially if he gets to build it around the popular WhatsApp.”

Point to note: Reliance is firmly in favour of internet censorship, and ending end-to-end encryption that ensures privacy of WhatsApp messages—as it made clear in its recommendations to the government. Facebook may soon make far greater concessions to appease its biz partner and the government than turning a blind eye to Bajrang Dal.

Facebook’s survival: Mark Zuckerberg acquired WhatsApp and Instagram precisely because he knew that Facebook had a limited future as just a social media platform. 

“Facebook is running out of slots to place advertisements on its flagship social network —too many ads in the feed diminish a user’s experience. So it’s leaning hard on the revenue potential of shopping.”

And both Instagram and WhatsApp are critical to that big play—and therefore, the massive Indian market, delivered to its doorstep courtesy Ambani:

“Both WhatsApp and Instagram are crucial to Facebook’s international strategy, offering the company a strong toehold in fast-growing markets like India and Brazil. In some countries, WhatsApp or Instagram far outpace their parent company by users. In India, for example, WhatsApp has over 100 million more users than Facebook does, according to EMarketer. That’s important to Facebook, which views India as the next great internet frontier, and the company has expressed concern that Chinese competitors might get there first.”

The bottomline: This is just the beginning of the morphing of Facebook India—which will soon cease to resemble anything like its US or European counterparts. It will soon become Facebook-Jio, instead—and all things that this pairing suggests.

Reading list

The Wall Street Journal story is behind a paywall, as is its previous investigation. The Verge has the best overview—with key links—on the Facebook-Jio partnership. Scroll has more on Reliance’s view on internet privacy and censorship. Read our previous explainer on the Ankhi Das controversy. Bloomberg News via Business Standard has the best analysis of Facebook’s future.