Responding to global criticism
It requires being more democratic and communicating more strategically
The farm protests have captured global attention, with figures such as the popular artiste Rihanna tweeting their solidarity with the protests. This has led the ministry of external affairs (MEA) to issue a statement, blaming “vested interest groups” and underlining the need to see protests within the framework of India’s democracy, the efforts made to reach an agreement, and the violence on Republic Day. This is unusual because the government usually ignores comments from non-State actors.
There are two distinct issues here. The first is the international solidarity that the movement has been able to generate, either due to the Sikh diaspora’s network, the larger mobilisation by liberal, Left, and human rights groups, or the nature of the international media’s coverage of the protests. At a time when it is not unusual for narratives to be controlled through influencer networks and IT cells — and India is no stranger to either — it is possible (no matter what the probability) that at least some of these displays of solidarity have been engineered. But irrespective of the causes and the merits of the criticism (or the merits of the underlying protest), it erodes India’s soft power and image as a democracy. The government will have to recognise the intricate ways in which domestic developments intersect with global politics, especially when social media has disproportionate power. The most effective way in which the State can respond is by strengthening its democratic framework and commitment to liberty and the right to dissent, in principle and practice. Rihanna, for instance, with over 100 million Twitter followers, is unlikely to be cowed down by trolls, or fears of falling sales of her music in India.
The second issue is the ability of this criticism — confined at the moment to private, even if influential, citizens — to become a matter of interState deliberations. This is where MEA’s statement comes in. It can be read as an attempt to counter what the government sees as “propaganda” to discredit India, and an effort to preempt foreign governments from being guided by the social media storm. It is unlikely that foreign governments, particularly the United States, will, even if they issue token statements, make it a top diplomatic issue. But what is clear is that India, because of the ideological and economic shifts underway in the country and the subsequent polarisation, will face questions. This requires ensuring that these transformations are democratically managed internally, and smarter strategic communication about the nature of these changes externally.