Bird’s Eye Stew

How does global politics—and its well-manicured handmaiden, diplomacy—go with the risky, addictive charms of social media? Well, politics could hardly resist the easy temptation. After all, here was a readymade weapon of mass delusion, available on the cheap. But the blind date is turning out to be a stormy one. First, politicians played the game; now the game has started playing them. Former US President Donald Trump was, in a sense, the first one to really split the atom. Breaking the genteel protocols of traditional diplomatese, he pretty much turned American politics on its head—maybe even global politics—when he took to Twitter. An unimpressive speaker who often found it difficult to craft a well-formed sentence like the old masters, and with an erratic, non-conformist persona, he found a natural playing field in that rough and tumble. So whether to announce his plans to wall up Mexico, to chastise China, heckle European leaders and Canadian premier Justin Trudeau, or praise Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, we all heard about it first via Jack Dorsey’s little jukebox.

Not that social media was not used before him. It was Barack Obama who first ploughed that field. Soon, leaders and nations realised the potential of social media. Official handles sprouted; India was no laggard. But there was a problem. Social media, by its nature, had a public interface—and everybody had an opinion. Rather, everyone was opinionated. It was to this wilder side that Trump moved, turning unexpurgated expression into a potent diplomatic weapon. But it’s one vast, live, ticking minefield out there. As India realised last week.

ALSO READ: War Of Angry Birds

There are those who believe the minefield must be navigated, not avoided. Former British diplomat Tom Fletcher in his book The Naked Diplomat passionately advocates dir­ect diplomatic engagement on social media, shedding off old elitist trappings. He believes diplomacy has to be brought down from its exalted ivory tower of closed-door meetings and convoluted policy statements. He deems the smartphone to be the modern diplomat’s best weapon! But hopes of a more open and democratic diplomacy are perhaps too idealistic. Diplomacy needs that touch of secrecy to wield its craft, so decisions can be made without the pressure of popular opinion. Unlike Trump’s wrecking-ball approach, Modi can’t think of negotiating with China’s Xi Jinping on the border dispute over social media. Some things are too sensitive. So conferences, summits, meetings on their sidelines will remain the foundation of global diplomacy.

Yes, with social media integrated into the diplomatic toolkit. But how? It may be instructive to watch the Joe Biden administration. The Biden foreign policy will certainly not be conducted over Twitter. “Structures, processes and protocols will continue to be the staple by which countries conduct foreign policy,” says Harsh Pant, director, Observer Research Foundation. Structure, process, protocol…comforting old words. And what do you do when the ‘other side’ doesn’t abide by your rules? Especially when dissent itself is global—and local protest politics finds solidarities across the seas? Can a government ignore it? Especially one like the Modi regime, for which global image-making is a vital game? And one that no one would accuse of having been a wallflower on social media?

ALSO READ: 'Nothing Wrong In Rihanna Or Greta Talking About Protesting Farmers'

So yes, engagement is necessary. But of what kind? Not, surely, by abandoning the measured poise appropriate to diplomacy. India exhibited more than a touch of naivete when it used the MEA spokesman to react to pop icon Rihanna’s tweet on the ongoing farmers’ strike. It was unnecessary, and it boomeranged, doing nothing at all to burnish the government’s arguments on farm sector reforms. Going after teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg and lodging an FIR in the name of a ‘toolkit’ was utter foolishness. Between Rihanna and Greta, both of whom have massive Twitter followings, it further highlighted the protest—doubtless a self-goal. The intelligent thing to do would have been to inform Greta that stubble-burning by Punjab and Haryana farmers was the principal reason for pollution in India, that dropping the fine against it is one of the farmers’ demands. Pro-government celebrities could surely have tweeted out this res­ponse. But immaturity reigned. Actors and cricketers thoughtlessly reproduced the MEA statement. The pro-Modi troll army made matters worse by attacking Rihanna, Greta and Meena Harris, niece of the US vice president, with angry, and often abusive and misogynist tweets, exposing India’s ugly warts to the world.

ALSO READ: Made Of Tendentious Tripe

There remains the question of the ‘legitimacy’ of solidarity tweets by global celebrities. “Modi and the BJP under him too are byproducts of soc­ial media, they have been its biggest beneficiaries. They used it to create huge followings in India and to reach out smartly to the diaspora…the whole ‘Howdy Modi’ phenomenon. You can’t have it both ways,” says former diplomat K.C. Singh. “It’s inevitable that the scars of your domestic policy will also show up. You can’t cry foul when it doesn’t suit you. Now that the Indian community in the US is split over support to Modi, criticism becomes conspiracy against India?” asks Singh.

Dilip Sinha, former diplomat and aut­hor of The Legitimacy of Power, sees a path towards maturity. “On foreign policy, there are two issues governments have to consider. First, the impact on international public opinion; and, how to deal with critical soc­ial media,” Sinha says. He cites the way European regimes have used social media effectively to mobilise public opinion on issues like climate change and human rights. In India, off­icially sanctioned use of social media has often straddled the cusp of the dom­estic and foreign realms. Targeting Pakistan and China online helps the government sharpen its hard nationalist stand internally, where using its powers to silence left-liberal voices and giving free rein to right-wing handles often becomes an equal objective. The unfettered demonology of China that accompanies nationalist assertions on Ladakh may actually hinder negotiations to defuse the crisis. “It can restrict the government’s ability to manoeuvre,” says Sinha.

ALSO READ: Rules Of The Game

This is vital if Narendra Modi’s positive harnessing of social media—converting the diaspora into a key bilateral constituency—is to retain its edge. The PM’s Twitter outreach, among the widest for world leaders, was early on the game. It hosts his ‘Make in India’ invite to global business leaders, also claims on climbing the global ‘ease of doing business’ index and full electrification. His ‘hello’ message on the Chinese microblogging site Weibo, before his first visit to China in 2015, was shared and commented upon widely locally. A Japan visit saw the same tack being employed profitably. The MEA too has excellent social media presence across YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, even Flickr, underlining the centrality India accords to social media.  

ALSO READ: Weapon Of Mass Seduction

But the same platforms also exp­ose the uglier side. The crackdown in Kashmir post-Article 370, the detention of politicians, students, activists and journalists, the stark caste/gender inequities as evidenced by the Hathras rape-cum-killing and a tough-fisted official approach to it…nothing is hidden, nothing remains ‘internal affairs’. Netizens worldwide get the picture the government would love to hide. That feeds into the circuits of global activism. Climate change, human rights and democracy are the three main issues that animate this vast, disembodied network—and India is susceptible to infamy on at least two. The discomfiture New Delhi feels now vis-à-vis the global attention on the farm agitation was already evident during the anti-NRC/CAA protests and talk of ‘detention camps’.

ALSO READ: Chat Up Privacy

“As a democracy, India cannot ign­ore human rights, like China or Russia does. The government will have to respond. It’s likely to frame these issues around sovereignty…citizens are certain to react sharply to ‘outside’ interference, regardless of facts,” Pant explains. “Foreign governments, including the US, know public scoldings, as in the past, will not help matters.” He expects no bruises internally or in formal diplomacy. But what social media has done is take matters beyond those realms. And globalised dissent is clearly an unfamiliar challenge for India.