Performative Activism in Contemporary India:

This paper discusses the emergence of performative activism in the Indian digital world as compared to the traditional grassroots movements. It examines how digital influencers, corporate signaling, algorithm amplification, and foreign information manipulation influence the discourse of the population, rooted in the phenomenon of “Click-bait”, “slacktivism”, “rainbow washing”. The evolution from ground level struggle like Chipko Movement to #MeTooIndia, some reforms are quantitative, but other raises serious concerns. Legal provisions such as Indian penal code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, IT Rules 2021, Consumer Protection Act, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023(IEA), electoral laws and Constitutional speech freedom are discussed as well as the interpretation of the courts to deal with accountability and misinformation. Proposals are based on insights gained in the EU, US, UK, Australia, and Canada, which focus on platform responsibility, practices by ethical influencers, digital literacy, and visionary legislation. By bridging law, media studies, and psychology, this study argues that true activism demands authenticity and sustained effort beyond hashtags; calling for a collective rethinking of how we define and pursue social justice in the digital age.. As one aptly wrote, “After all, to solve a problem, you must first know that it exists”.
Keywords: Performative-Activism, Digital-Influencers, Algorithmic Amplification, Legal Accountability, Social Media Regulation.

Introduction

Activism refers to the action of seeking social or political change via a collective action. In contrast, performative-activism focuses more on the image of support rather than its substance . The trend has gained momentum with the emergence of the digital platform because online presence, hashtags, and involvement of influencers tend to take precedence over the substantive interaction. The paper will observe the role of digital processes, social media, and online trends in the context of activism by posing ethical, sociological, and legal questions in the modern age. The major question:
"Whether Performative Activism dilutes genuine movements, and how law and policy can ensure accountability in digital activism."

Historical Context: From Ground Movements To Digital Movements

Indian activism has always been a social movement of change. During the decades after independence, activism was firmly embedded in the physical space, in forests, villages, and streets, where individuals formed to struggle against oppression, exploitation, and inequality. Activism was manifested in movements like the Chipko Andolan (1973) when villagers especially women embraced trees to stop deforestation and the Narmada Bachao Andolan (1985) that opposed the huge dam projects that displaced thousands of people; such movements were based on collective struggle, environmental ethics and tangible reform. These were waves of resistance and direct challenge to state authority. Their influence was also felt i.e. laws have been changed, projects have been redefined and the perception of the people has been altered.

But with the Indian shift to the digital era the language of activism has radically changed. The advent of social media sites allowed activists to shift their actions to the screen and not the street, to carrying placards & sharing hashtags. For instance the hashtag #MeTooIndia (2018) demonstrated the power of digital activism that has never been seen before: thousands of women approached the online platform to share their stories of sexual harassment, which drove institutional change . Equally, the CAA protests of 2019-2020 saw social media act as a mobilization tool. Digital posters, live stream, and art groups were amplified on the ground.

This era marked the birth of “artivism,” where artists used Instagram and Twitter to circulate dissent art. In a 2023 study on Dissent Art in the Digital-Age, Bhawana Parmar emphasized the fact that the protest art of the CAA movement had led to the confusion between solidarity and self-branding as some artists faced online criticism and others got thousands of followers to their aestheticized protest .

Generational changes can also be seen in the development of activism. According to the Fridays for Future India and the 2025 Digital Natives and Environmental Sustainability Movements, where youth environmental activism is led by young Indians, people increasingly engage through visual storytelling, reels, and hashtags . Although these online tools have the positive effect of democratizing participation, they may also lead to a condition known by scholars as clicktivism fatigue increased awareness but little structural influence.

The shift poses some important questions whether activism is a fad, has its transformative power died away? In a world where every cause is “performed”, how do we distinguish between real and online performance? These questions are the crux of studying performative activism as the reflection of and challenge to the contemporary democratic discourse.

Understanding Performative Activism

Performative activism (alternatively called performative allyship) is a type of social activism in which people publicly express their support of social change perceived to be inauthentic or superficial. In scholarly writing, the term is commonly pejoratively applied to refer to activities (particularly on social media) that are aimed at “virtue-signaling” instead of actually tackling the situation and “slacktivism” a portmanteau of slacker and activism to denote activities that involve engaging in online actions with minimum effort, such as posting a hashtag, even an online petition, or a profile picture which, according to critics, does not necessarily mean the person is committed to the cause. In short, both virtue signaling and slacktivism are used to explain kinds of performative activism: well intentional or otherwise, they can be little more than posturing without action.

Types of Performative Activism

1. Corporate Performativity: Performative activism is common practice in several companies where the trending causes are publicly supported but nothing is actually changed within the organization . To illustrate, brands can adorn products or logos with rainbows during Pride Month a strategy that is commonly referred to as “rainbow-washing” or “marketing-rainbow” capitalism without authentic allyship; incorporating no LGBTQ+ rights among staff . Critics note that certain companies alter their branding to signal solidarity, but continue policies that undermine those communities. Concisely, corporate virtue signaling has ability to enhance the image of a brand or its sales but may not correct the cause on the ground.
2. Diversity-washing critiques in Indian workplaces: Local news and opinion articles depict queer employees in Indian companies demanding actual policies (inclusive HR, anti-discrimination) despite the apparent Pride branding on the outside. This shows the gap between marketing and internal reform . Commentaries in National Herald and Campaign India documented this “rainbow-washing” phenomenon calling out multinational retailers and local brands and their empty gestures without policy reform.
3. Celebrity Performativity: According to scholars, the activism of celebrities is a two-sided sword: the visibility can be gained, but the inconsistent or shallow involvement will soon become a subject of criticism. To summarize, celebrity performativity can frequently imply a movement as a publicity or image, which spectators contrast with deeper, long-term advocacy, e.g., Emma Watson for Black Lives Matter and Leonardo DiCaprio preaching about climate change while taking private jets.
   During global movements like Black Lives Matter, most Indian celebrities shared black squares or hashtags to demonstrate their support. However critics pointed out that such gestures were more motivated by fashion and publicity than by concern. Although those organizational uproar of racial injustice in the U.S. was warranted, the same voices failed to be heard when a Dalit boy was beaten to death in Uttar-Pradesh or caste-based violence in India was taking place. These events were minimally or not amplified online maybe due to their lack of a global reputation and their inability to become a trending matter on social media. As one commentator aptly wrote, “After all, to solve a problem, you must first know that it exists” . This contrast revealed how performative activism tends to focus on international fame rather than domestic injustices.
4. Public Performativity: Low effort activism can also be practiced by ordinary people online. The simple sharing of hashtags or placing somewhat symbolic contents without an action is the typical illustration. The recent example is the online campaign of the #FarmersProtest2024 when the coordinated messaging was flying on social media just before the protest marches that produced high online presence and low offline action. Critics argue that these gestures can give a false sense of impact: awareness may increase, but commitment and change often lag . In this view, numerous symbolic performances profile modification, common hashtags turn into slacktivism: shallow, emotionally gratifying, but feeble in generating actual social change .

The Role Of Digital Influencers In Activism

Digital influencers have evolved from content creators to key drivers of social change today, with the capacity to highlight the problem, gather audiences, and influence the social discourse. However, this influence comes with significant complexities.

Weaponizing Visibility & Emerging Trends in India

Studies, including research by Saloni Dash indicate numerous Indian influencers practice partisanship, with retweets and followers rewarding polarized content . According to the German Council on Foreign Relations, influencers can be used to fabricate collective behavior at the expense of social cohesion and democracy . In India, awards like the National Creators Award confuse the difference between real activism and the state-aligned narrative, raising concerns of authenticity.

Clickbait Culture & Algorithmic Activism

The attention economy rewards virality over accuracy, creating a clickbait culture where sensational content flourishes especially harmful in health, law, and finance, where false information has a real impact . Algorithm incentives have commodified activism, which focus on reach over responsibility, enhancing outrage-based posts algorithmic-activism that contributes to polarization and misperceptions . Both domestic and foreign FIMI networks exploit these system , since the 2017 Doklam standoff, India has been battling disinformation perpetrated by foreign actors and responding with the 2020 ban of several Chinese apps, including Tik-Tok, as a way to limit foreign influence in digital discourse.

Legal Arsenal

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (196, 299, 356, 353): these sections apply in the cases whereby online speech is said to provoke communal hatred, religious outrage, or to defame persons. Under such provisions, courts have considered social-media posts to have the potential to cause public mischief and police have invoked them in cases of misinformation surrounding COVID-19 & election-related.
2. IT Act & IT Rules 2021 (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code): The 2021 Rules compel intermediaries to appoint grievance officers, keep a record and respond to complaints (with obligations of grievance resolution within 72 hours timelines in certain cases). They also give the state the power to issue a takedown, and request records, which have been the primary administrative tool to regulate the platforms. Courts and commentators have extolled their sense of clarity on the duties of the intermediary but deplored possible overreach and traceability rules.
3. Section 69A (IT Act): content blocking & foreign interference: Blocking orders (e.g. bans on dozens of Chinese apps in 2020 based on sovereignty and security) demonstrates how the State will apply 69A where it believes foreign information is being manipulated and poses a threat to national-security.
4. Consumer Protection Act & ASCI guidelines: these regulate deceptive advertisements and influencer disclosure (ASCI’s influencer guide and enforcement scorecards show rising scrutiny of non-disclosure and “green-/rainbow-washing”). Consumer-protection reasoning has been applied in courts when false or dangerous commercial claims are at-hand.
5. Disaster Management Act / Epidemic Diseases Act: such emergency statues were invoked multiple times during COVID to arrest those who transmit panic or fake health information, a controversial yet active instrument by police and executive agencies.
6. Representation of the People Act & election law: Selection-period misinformation is policed under the electoral laws and EC guidelines; courts and the ECI have acted where coordinated ‘paid-news’ or misrepresentation pose a threat to the electoral integrity.
7. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (62, 63): digital records are admissible, but with formal requirements (certificates under S.63), shaping how prosecutors and litigants present social-media evidence in defamation/misinformation cases.

Courts’ Interpretation: Legal Lenses On Performative Activism

Section 356 of the BNS regulates defamation in India, and any spoken, written or visual statement, which infringes on the reputation of a person, is criminalized. Unlike jurisdictions in which the truth is a complete defense, the Indian law additionally demands that the truth must be in the common good, and defamation is especially controversial in the digital era of performative outrage and unverified claims.

In Arvind Kejriwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)) (2019), the Delhi H.C. held that a retweet constitutes of “publication” under Section 499 , recognising that social media amplification in itself may amount to a liability . This tension was further seen in the Ajaz Khan case, his controversial Tik-Tok videos linking mob violence with religious profiling, framed as social awareness resulted in charges under Sections 153A, 295A, 505(2) and 499 IPC . Authorities considered his content as a hate-baiting activism, highlighting how dissent and defamation blur when visibility becomes weaponized .

1. Public-Health Lens for Commercial Claims: In the Patanjali/Indian Medical Association lawsuit, the Supreme Court stepped intervened to restrain false advertising of medical practices and lamented the regulatory paralysis. The ruling underscored the readiness of the courts to assume a consumer-protection and health-based approach in cases where influencer or corporate messaging posses tangible harm. The case highlights the judiciary’s proactive stance on health-related content that may jeopardize the welfare of people.
2. Rights-Restriction / Free Speech Balancing Lens: Indian courts often strike a balance between free speech as in Art.19(1)(a) and reasonable restrictions as in Art.19(2) . Fair critique is frequently treated with greater protection whilst criminal defamation or contumacious speech are usually restrained. The Supreme Court has been consistently ruling that speech undermining the dignity of other people or incite violence is not covered under the protection of the constitution. Therefore, activism that propagates fake information or tarnishes a name can be sued .
3. Platform Accountability vs. Creator Liability: The IT Rules, 2021 , used by regulators in India require intermediaries to conduct content takedowns and traceability of dangerous posts. Simultaneously, courts seek out individual tortfeasers for defamation or consumer-protection violation. This two-sided solution puts the surveillance on platforms while leaving the accountability of creators fragmented, complicating evidence collection, cross borders enforcement, and vernacular moderation .
4. Electoral Integrity and Trend-Manufacturing: The advent of 4G moved much of India’s political discussion online. Co-ordinated WhatsApp groups played a role in the mobilization of pre-written tweets between the 2014 and 2019 General Elections creating nationwide hashtag campaigns and demonstrated how social media can produce a controlled agenda. This highlights difficulty in controlling digital political-participation and trend-manufacturing.
   Under the RPA Act, 1951, and EC guidelines, it is illegal to publish election-related materials during the 48-hour “silence period” , and misuse of social media such as AI, and deep fake tools is prohibited. Yet, enforcement gaps persist: FIRs have been over projecting fake opinion-polls , making it a significant challenge to monitor private applications such as WhatsApp to guarantee fair digital electoral behavior.

Comparative Law Subsection (Legal & Ethical Dimensions)

1. European Union – Digital Services Act (DSA): The EU’s DSA focuses on Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) with over 45 million users, obliged to keep publicly accessible repositories of advertisements, reporting ingredients targeting criteria and funding origin, and conduct risk assessments to prevent circulation of disinformation . The platforms should also cover content moderation and misinformation control, particularly in times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Regulatory adherence has been wobbly at times such as, TikTok faced scrutiny failing to meet transparency standards, demonstrating the difficulty in enforcing widespread accountability scale . The DSA priorities proactive control platforms responsibility and alleviation of systemic risks in online discussion through prioritising the high-impact platforms.
2. United States – Federal Trade Commission (FTC) & Section 230: The US FTC enforces strict influencer disclosure; requiring creators to obligeto reveal disclosures of material relationships with brands . Violations may lead to civil fines over $50,000 per-case with FTC’s Notice of Penalty Offenses specifies deceptive practices to make the deterrence clear . The platforms are mostly protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , limiting the liability of the third-party content, leaving the responsibility of enforcement to the influencers and advertisers directly . Indicatively, the FTC has acted against Instagram influencers promoting dietary supplements without their awareness, highlighting the US emphasis on direct creator responsibility.
3. United Kingdom – ASA & Ofcom: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of the UK’s advice its CAP codes to influencer-created content on social media . In 2021, monitoring over 24,000 pieces of posts by ASAs showed a high level of non-compliance with disclosure standards. The regulator in turn started to publicly name repeat offenders and collaborate with platforms to enhance compliance . Also, as part of the Online Safety Act (2023), Ofcom, the accountability of platforms with harmful or misleading online content is shared with the creators, creating a dual-regulatory framework, contributing to the transparency and the safety of the user.
4. Australia & Canada – Platform Liaison and Risk Assessments: Australia’s Online Safety Act imposes a “duty of care” for digital platforms, obliging them to take reasonable measures to ensure that internet users are not affected by foreseeable online harms, also carrying out annual risk-assessment on the safety of users and content moderation . The platforms should also work with the Office of the e-Safety Commissioner in order to be compliant and transparent. Similarly, Canada has also started to initiate regulatory frameworks that require that platforms and government agencies report periodically and have direct liaison to combat misinformation, especially during elections . Both countries emphasize the usefulness of a systematic government-platform cooperation and offensive risk-management as the means of ensuring accountability in the digital ecosystem.
5. Consolidated Takeaway for India: The EUs DSA is aimed at platform transparency and auditing globally , the US on platform accountability, and the UK, Australia, and Canada on regulatory collaboration and cooperation. In the case of India, such examples indicate that in addition to the current laws (IT Rules 2021, IPC, Consumer Protection, ASCI), there are opportunities to:
   • - There should be a centralized monitoring and enforcing body that will liaise between the regulators and the platforms.
   • - Compulsory risk testing and large platform transparency reporting.
   • - Greater, targeted enforcement against creators/influencers that disseminate misinformation.
   • - Guidelines between online and offline activism, involving performative campaigns that have reputational effects.

Psychological And Sociological Impact

Performative activism is fueled by the dopamine hit of validation, each like or share is an instant hit of validation, and people are motivated to want to be seen instead of actually changing the world. Benthamite utilitarian perspective on such behavior is that it is more about self-pleasure than morality.

Sociologically, Durkheim’s collective consciousness is the reason people adhere to trending causes to be part of a moral community, where deviation will lead to social alienation. This push is what drives cancel culture making accountability a performance of indignation.

Law and morality, as H.L.A. Hart and Roscoe Pound observed, become useless when they are subject to emotional populism instead of reason. The outcome is fatigue in movement whereby authentic activism is shrouded by surface involvement. Activism during the digital age has mostly been about the clout chasing, shifting principle to popularity.

The Way Forward: Towards Meaningful Activism

1. Digital literacy & critical thinking: Based on the National Digital Literacy Mission, India needs to increase media literacy via governmental and non-governmental initiatives that educate users to check facts, see through lies, and fight misinformation on the Web. By incorporating Government-lead program and promote source verification, a long-term digital resilience can be created .
2. Ethical influencer codes: Enforce and strengthen self-regulation. Misleading endorsement is already prohibited by the CP Act and the ASCI guidelines, yet additional steps (i.e., registering high-risk influencers and regular audits) can provide transparency and accountability .
3. Platform accountability: New intermediate regulations must hold platforms more accountable to deepfakes and misinformation . The credibility and deterrence can be increased with the help of AI-based moderation, content labeling, periodic transparency report, and independent audits.
4. Bridging online and offline: Campaigns on social media must be translated into practice. In the wake of the 2012 case of the Delhi gang-rape, the online collective-outrage resulted in tangible policy change, which demonstrates how digital interaction can lead to institutional change.
5. Social Media Accountability Bill: India could establish a similar law to the EU’s Digital Services Act , which requires the disclosure of the algorithms, supervisory committees, and severe fines on harmful or manipulative content to balance free-speech and responsibility.
All these reforms can make digital-activism a socially responsible, effective agent of change.

Conclusion

To sum up, digital activism is potentially a powerful tool to make a social change, but it is laden with ethical, legal, and psychological traps. It is the duty of influences, platforms, and users to make sure that visibility does not require sacrificing truth or trust by the populace. India should explore this tricky terrain by adamantly integrating powerful legalities, ethical standards, digital literacy and purposeful offline interactions. Since Mohsin Hamid is rightfully observed, “The most dangerous lies are the ones we tell ourselves in the name of doing good.” Here we are reminded that activism, whether online or off, should be driven by integrity and responsibility as opposed to visibility or viral popularity.

Written By: Samriddhi Kapadnis (BA LL.B, 3rd Year, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur)