Flailing Public, Unwavering Republic
A room, superficially tranquil and fortified, accommodates the esoteric murmurings of the virtuous men and women playing their cards with carefully chosen words either to subdue or dazzle their counterparts; the ruffling of boring yet highly worked upon pages, negotiations for the highest stakes on the round table, a war of words is being fought. It’s the diplomats’ chamber. The weary discussions turn into statements of authority for the public to discern their clandestine meanings. The policy is tossed up among the masses to be tweaked, grilled and vindicated. A rush of emotive opinions, overwhelmingly uneducated and disinformed fills the social space. No, it doesn’t sway the authoritative mood. It should not.
The ascendancy of social media and the liberating experience associated with it has prepared a decorated stage for the masses to voice their viewpoints on the hitherto publicly untouched space of foreign policy. People’s participation in the formulation and manifestation of decisions pertaining to local and regional issues has been excessively tangible. The promissory manifestos of political parties are nothing, but interest articulations turned into policies deemed to fulfil the demands of the mob. However, the fervour of native politics surpasses that of the developments in international affairs of the nation. This is a blessing in disguise. But lately, this trend has turned upside down with netizens actively partaking in the geopolitical discourse, mostly infused with ethno-nationalistic sentiments rendering the logic behind allies and enemies turbid.
The fresh furore on Maldives shifting to a pro-China stratagem spearheaded by Male’s newly elected President Muizzu has been found on the wrong footing with the Indian netizens, surprisingly more than the government itself. The digital spat that erupted into a showdown between Lakshadweep and Maldivian Islands (as if the Andamans ceased to exist) reflected the veritable sentiments of the Indian masses about how they perceive international relations. They are parochial for starters. Not only the uneducated opinions of innumerable anonymous but entrepreneurs and celebrities also sailed in the ship of frenzy with the likes of Ease My Trip suspending the air bookings for Maldives… a marketing gimmick of utmost quality indeed. Although the Indian wave of sentimentalism escalated due to blatantly dirty remarks by Maldivian party officials, the hashtag “boycott Maldives” painted a grim picture of the overprotective and opinion-hungry netizens. The revelations in the recent budget where Rs 770 crores have been earmarked for investment projects in Maldives reiterates the official and unwavering stance of the Indian government which remains unaffected by the immature musings of the multitudes.
Foreign policy demands the formulation of complex calculations encompassing the spheres of security, economy, technology, and people-to-people relations etc. For a layman who might not even know about the precise locations of different countries in the world, voicing confident yet puerile opinions on a nation’s policy stance is unworthy of the knowledgeable service done by hundreds of diplomats and associated officials. The Maldivian Molotov that was conflagrated was one of many such cases where the social media sentiment passed a vehemently opposite verdict than the official one. The heart-wrenching Iranian protests against its ‘moral police’ and the stringent dress codes that led to the demise of Mahsa Amini is a case in the making. There was opprobrium expressed on the part of the collective West and the Indian social media ambience retorted the same but the convolutedness of India’s bonhomie with Iran made Indian authorities stop short of explicitly criticizing the Iranian state for its reckless and barbaric crackdown on the protesting men & women.
While public opinion decides the trajectory of national politics where a spectacle can be made of the collective passion in the form of Temple inaugurations and creation of quotas (reservation) as such, the principles of a foreign policy are solely driven by the nuances of international hodgepodge as inferred by the celebrated experts of the concerned field. Notwithstanding, the ideal question that needs to be answered is should public opinion, especially in a country like India where more than 60% of the population is rural and embroiled in securing the basic necessities of decent education and health services, be allowed to dictate the terms of nation’s overseas relationships.
India’s vicinity in the north and the east has overwhelming cultural and historical relations with natives. The Northeast for instance has tribal bonhomies which encompass borders. This has substantial implications for the government’s blueprint for managing itself with countries such as Myanmar and Bangladesh. In such scenarios, public opinion can be taken into account before executing the plans. However, when it's about the security of the nation in toto, nothing can become an exception. The latest decision to scrap the Free Movement Regime (FRA) between India and Myanmar by the Indian government testifies to this proposition. The sentimentalism is at its zenith when the recurring motifs of India’s foreign policy- Pakistan and China emerge on the scene.
A layman’s is an opinion that changes with time and place whereas a true understanding of a subject is based on knowledge which is perfected over time by its connoisseurs. Alas, the booming internet age has brought a deluge of the former. It might stir the mood of the imperial who, in desperation of conforming with the majority's importunity may steer the course of paramount policy principles which can be deleterious in the long-term. The policy of satisfying the fools should be eschewed.
