The inconsistency of foreign policy in the digital age is highlighted by the contrast between India’s official diplomatic stance and user actions on social media, such as the “Boycott Maldives” movement.
When the post-New Year fog lifts and thoughts shift to vacations, many Indian social media users are making a statement by boycotting one travel destination: the Maldives. This movement, called “Boycott Maldives,” began when Maldivian officials made offensive remarks about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It quickly gained momentum and brought attention to the growing influence of social media on public diplomacy and international relations.
Since Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Lakshadweep, an Indian archipelago in the Arabian Sea, where he praised the “stunning beauty of its islands and the incredible warmth of its people,” many Indian users saw this as a chance to pit Lakshadweep against the neighboring Maldives.
In recent years, tensions have increased between India and the Maldives, where President Mohamed Muizzu has called for India to remove its military personnel from the country. Muizzu broke with tradition by visiting Beijing instead of New Delhi for his first official visit, and India fears that Muizzu has been cozying up to China. The archipelagic nation has accused India of meddling in its domestic affairs, leading to a strong “India Out” movement that has eclipsed its “India First” policy.
On social media, simmering political tensions erupted into flames as the Maldives mocked comparisons to Lakshadweep. The situation quickly spiraled out of control when government figures entered the fray, most notably Mariyam Shiuna, the Maldivian Deputy Minister of Youth Empowerment, Information, and Arts, who posted controversial tweets about Modi. This sparked a digital wildfire that ignited widespread outrage and gave rise to the “Boycott Maldives” movement, with many Indians, including celebrities, voicing their displeasure by canceling their scheduled travel plans to the island nation.
Separating itself from these remarks, the Maldives government suspended three deputy ministers, including Shiuna, Abdulla Mahzoom Majid, and Malsha Shareef, and said that Shiuna’s remarks were her personal opinion and did not reflect the government’s position.
The Maldives-India crisis is a prime example of how the art of diplomacy is becoming more and more susceptible to the waves created by public figures’ spontaneous remarks in today’s social media-driven world. The online outcry highlights the widening gap between public opinion and India’s official foreign policy.
Foreign policy, once restricted to the quiet hallways of embassies and the strategic roundtables of seasoned diplomats and bureaucrats, has now exploded into the vibrant, uncensored world of social media. This once somber and measured field is now dancing to the erratic tempo of tweets, hashtags, and viral posts. In this new digital agora, the masses’ keyboards are also contributing to the coloration of the intricate tapestry that is international relations. Diplomatic dialogue, once the domain of formal communiques and closed-door meetings, is now taking place in real-time, under the observation and influence of a worldwide audience.
In India, a parallel phenomenon is emerging: users of social media are voicing their opinions about where India “stands” on important international issues. This was demonstrated during the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, when hashtags like #IStandWithPutin and #IStandWithRussia trended on social media, defying the government’s official neutral stance. These accounts, which were found to be primarily loyal to PM Modi and the BJP, reflect both the political leanings and right-wing ideology that are influencing these discussions. As a result, these accounts reflect not only grassroots expressions of foreign policy opinions but also the political leanings and right-wing ideology that are shaping these discussions.
The online narrative transformed this diplomatic dispute into a combative triumph for India, with users claiming that India “thrashed” Canada and gave a “savage reply,” putting Trudeau “in his place.” After Canada accused India of being complicit in the murder of Sikh separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar, Delhi formally refuted the allegations.
Public opinion, which is frequently influenced by fleeting emotions and viral trends, should not be allowed to dictate diplomatic positions because it could drive away long-standing allies whose policies may temporarily deviate from the popular narrative. In such a scenario, India may find itself in a difficult position where it must decide between maintaining strategic alliances and satisfying domestic public opinion, which could reduce its diplomatic leverage, make it more difficult for it to navigate the intricate web of international relations, and possibly result in a more isolated position on the international scene.
On social media, right-wing and Hindu nationalist accounts emerged during Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, amplifying anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic disinformation. These Indian right-wing accounts, which frequently compare the Israeli and Indian flags, have been vocal in their support for Israel. Other reports have also found Indian social media users leading the pro-Israel disinformation campaign.
All of this is happening in opposition to India’s official position, which has called for a humanitarian pause and given aid to Palestine. The contradiction between right-wing social media accounts’ actions and the country’s formal diplomatic position highlights how complicated and sometimes contradictory foreign policy is in the digital age. While the government takes a more measured approach, the nationalist narrative on social media promotes an entirely different agenda, highlighting the growing divide between public opinion and official policy.