A few stories have stirred up a storm on Indian Twitter these past weeks – with the same connection. They are either foreigners or foreign publications commenting on India. The sequence started with an op-ed in The New York Times on Trump’s victory, tracing the wave of populist electoral revolts sweeping the world to the 2014 election of Narendra Modi in India. The second was The Hindu carrying an interview of the Greek ‘Alternate’ Foreign Minister (nobody including the Greek Foreign Ministry website seem to explain what ‘alternate foreign minister’ means). And finally, there was The Economist slamming the implementation of currency reforms in India.
The first elicited howls of indignation from even normally restrained centrist Twitterati, the second stirred up the pro-demonetisation crowd, while the third failed to rile up anyone of consequence save a retired diplomat. The question is, why do these stories by foreigners or in foreign publications elicit such responses?
The Economist Faces Less Hate Now Than Before 2014
The Economist, surprisingly, was once the focal point of much nationalist ire – particularly before the 2014 general elections. Much of this was because of the slant of their then Delhi Bureau chief – a chap called Adam Roberts.
Adam’s idea of primary research included consuming copious quantities of Chianti and Prosecco at the Italian Cultural Centre and internalising the gossip of the Lutyens Echo Chamber as divine wisdom. This was easy to do given that hard statistics are quite hard to come by in India.
Consequently, a largely fact-free society opinion substituted for facts and that was the path The Economist chose. The crowning glory of that echo chamber was the ringing endorsement of Rahul Gandhi for prime minister – earning Adam Roberts and The Economist a furious backlash on social media – and Rahul reaped the dividends, going on to win a stunning total of 44 Lok Sabha seats.
Since then, however, the bile directed at The Economist seems to have largely settled down and – surprise, surprise – their coverage has been much more balanced.
Most tweets against The Economist pointed out that the bad execution of demonetisation was a result of the chronic enforcement deficit and bad planning that are a hallmark of Indian government. Save one – Nirupama Rao – India’s former Ambassador to the US and Foreign Secretary, who brought out the ‘foreigners talking down to us’ card.
It would seem that the RBI’s decision to bar The Economist from today’s press conference had nothing to do with its negative coverage nor was it the only branch barred from the conference. All up – The Economist seems to have settled down to being significantly less hated.
The Hindu’s Interview and the Rage of the Twitter Right
The story that ran parallel and set Twitter ablaze though was The Hindu’s publication of the Greek minister’s interview.
Now, under normal circumstances, even top European diplomats are ignored in Delhi, save the French when they come discussing Rafale.
That the “alternate” minister – that too of a third-tier borderline-failed European state was given prominence in The Hindu just because he echoed their editorial line was enough to make the bull see red.
But amidst the abuse and hyperbolic outrage, there were two clear streams of questioning:
- Is it appropriate for a visiting foreign dignitary to comment on domestic policy?
- Why should a medium power like India with big power aspirations seek peer approval from a nobody?
Both of these are valid questions and, sure enough, much of the Twitter Right coalesced around these two arguments.
In a sense, they scored a victory as the Greek Embassy was forced to disavow the interview claiming the “alternate” had been alternately contextualised.
India Doesn’t Like Foreigners Commenting on Domestic Issues
But the core issue brought out by The Hindu interview remains. Europe has moved into a post-Westphalian order where sovereignty and nationalism are dirty words. European ministers frequently comment on and actively interfere in each other’s domestic affairs. India, on the other hand, is much like the United States. Nationalism and Sovereignty are paramount and neither take kindly to foreigners commenting or interfering in their domestic processes.
The difference is that the US has gotten used to everybody commenting on it and ignores them completely – America, you see, has no peers worth listening to.
This is why when The Hindu chooses Left wing fringe elements like Noam Chomsky as their go-to on all things America, not a single American cares.
On the other hand, when The New York Times chooses an equally irrelevant resident of la la Land – Pankaj Mishra – everyone in India takes notice. This is particularly surprising since Chomsky is clear and articulate in his enunciations, whereas Mishra’s unintelligibly verbose mumbo-jumbo passes right over everybody’s head. Since clarity and coherence is clearly not the issue, what is?
The answer, perhaps, lies in the fact that those outraging against NYT weren’t simply from the Left, but serious policy folks from across a spectrum – Right, Left and Centre.
For them, the issue was that a man who is considered a shallow, superficial, borderline cuckoo social climber was chosen as a representative of them and their opinions, and his mediocrity paints them all in bad light.
As it turns out, the outrage brigade online is anything but a monolith. Far from it, there seem to be several drivers of this behaviour. But the basic message seems to be this:
If you’re white and don’t think I’m right – get lost.
(Abhijit Iyer-Mitra is Senior Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. He tweets at @Abhijit_Iyer. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)