By Mrinal Talukdar
In recent time, national security concerns have increasingly been debated and disseminated through social media platforms, with conventional media taking note and raising deeply disturbing questions about the intersection of security, politics, and digital discourse.
The case of Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi and allegations concerning his wife, Elizabeth Colebourn, exemplifies this growing trend of playing out serious security matters in the public domain.
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has alleged that Elizabeth Colebourn had professional ties with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) through her work in developmental fields, operating under Ali Tauqeer Sheikh. Further, Sarma claimed that Gaurav Gogoi met Pakistani diplomats went to the Pakistan embassy and continuously raised sensitive defense questions in Parliament after marrying Colebourn, implying potential national security risks.
Gaurav Gogoi has dismissed these allegations as baseless and politically motivated, emphasizing that such claims are part of a smear campaign against him and his family.
The Digital Battlefield of National Security
But leaving aside the merit of the allegations and counter-allegations, the real question is why such serious matters are being debated in such an unstructured and flimsy manner. The very essence of national security—something that should be treated with the highest level of discretion—is now fodder for online debates, allegations, and counter-allegations, raising concerns about the consequences of such public trials.
Traditionally, national security concerns have been handled through official government channels, ensuring thorough investigation and confidentiality. However, the rise of social media has transformed the landscape, allowing information—both verified and unverified—to spread at unprecedented speeds.
The instant nature of these discussions makes social media an attractive platform for political parties, activists, and even security agencies to shape public opinion. As a result, national security matters, which should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and professional handling, are now being contested through tweets and viral posts.
The Erosion of Trust in Institutions
The reach of social media enables it to shape narratives quickly, often bypassing traditional media scrutiny. This, however, creates a fertile ground for misinformation and disinformation, leading to public confusion and even unrest.
The revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status saw a surge of fabricated images and videos circulating online, exacerbating tensions. The same trend appears to be at play in the case of Gaurav Gogoi, where serious allegations are being debated in an atmosphere more akin to political entertainment than genuine security concern.
Risks Beyond Borders
The political slugfest that social media enables further complicates matters. Instead of engaging in constructive discussions about national security, political actors often resort to sensationalism, turning serious security concerns into partisan battles. The Gogoi-Colebourn case fits this pattern, as the allegations coincide with a heated political climate and an approaching election season. The strategic timing raises the question of whether this is about national security at all or merely an attempt to tarnish an opponent’s credibility. Moreover allegation from a Chief Minister followed by an order of an inquiry by his own government make it even more curious.
The Growing Role of Misinformation
Another significant consequence of debating national security on social media is the erosion of public trust in institutions responsible for handling such matters. National security should be a matter of rigorous investigation, not one played out through hashtags and viral posts. When such issues are left to be debated in the court of public opinion rather than handled through intelligence agencies, diplomatic channels, and parliamentary oversight, the very process of maintaining national security is undermined.
The Bigger Picture: Security or Political Tactic?
There is also a real risk of escalating tensions when such matters are discussed irresponsibly. Sensational claims on social media can have diplomatic repercussions, particularly when they involve foreign governments.
The global interconnectedness of online platforms means that a single tweet can create international ripples, further complicating diplomatic and security strategies. Such incidents also risk undermining genuine investigations, as political spectacles often distort facts, making it harder for authorities to conduct unbiased inquiries.
The case of Gaurav Gogoi and his wife is not an isolated one but part of a larger trend of national security concerns being appropriated for political narratives. If there were genuine risks involved, they should have been handled through intelligence channels rather than through a social media campaign.
The shift from institutional handling to social media theatrics does not serve the interests of national security; rather, it exposes the fragility of public discourse around critical security concerns.
The increasing tendency to discuss national security matters on social media rather than through official channels is symptomatic of a larger issue—an erosion of institutional trust and a rise in populist narratives that thrive on controversy rather than facts.
Social media provides a platform for dialogue, but it should not replace institutional processes designed to handle sensitive security issues. What is at stake is not just an individual’s credibility but the integrity of national security itself. The question remains: Are we safeguarding national security, or merely using it as another weapon in political battles.