Amidst the ongoing farmers’ protests engulfing India, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the “situation is concerning”. In response, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) denounced the Canadian leader’s “ill-informed” and “unwarranted” comments, and released a statement accusing him of “inciting extremist activities”, warning, “Such actions, if continued, would have a seriously damaging impact on ties between India and Canada.” Trudeau, however, did not back down, and once again expressed his “support” for the demonstrators, and was joined by New Democratic Party Leader (NDP) Jagmeet Singh, Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole as well.
Although none of them has explicitly criticised the new laws the Indian government has introduced, Indian authorities have perceived their words in support of the protests as an interference into the internal affairs of India. Consequently, India summoned Canada’s High Commissioner to lodge a formal complaint against Trudeau's comments, while Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar withdrew from the Canada-led Ministerial Coordination Group on COVID-19 (MCGC).
Against this tense backdrop, several commentators, such as Christine Fair (who is an expert on South Asian geopolitics), have decried the hyper-sensitivity of the Indian government and its excessive aversion to any sort of commentary on Indian politics by foreign actors. In a now deleted tweet, Fair contrasted Canada with India by saying, “Canada is an actual democracy that enshrines freedom of speech. India has maintained colonial-era anti-free speech regulations because they serve the current GoI’s interests just as they did the interests of the “colonial masters.” This is a fact. Deal with it.”
Similarly irascible reactions by Indian authorities have been observed following comments by international actors on Kashmir and religious freedoms, to name but a few instances. However, while these criticisms may be valid when describing India’s civilian population, is the Indian government’s skin truly any thinner than that of its international counterparts?
China, for example, has locked horns with a plethora of countries over their remarks on Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, protests in Hong Kong and the newly unveiled National Security Law, the independence of Taiwan, territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and its handling of the coronavirus pandemic. China’s sensitivity to such remarks is clearly visible in its rapidly deteriorating ties with Australia, with several senior Chinese diplomats warning of a boycott of Australlian higher education institutions, tourism, and exports. In fact, China has already imposed a large number of trade restrictions and bans on multiple Australian exports and has launched anti-dumping investigations into others. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has also leveraged its control over state-owned media outlets such as Global Times to threaten a “fatal” blow to Australia, whom it describes “giant kangaroo that serves as a dog of the US”.
Russia has also alleged foreign meddling within its borders, particularly in 2019, when thousands of Russians took to the streets to demand free and fair elections. In fact, the government established a parliamentary commission to investigate these allegations with an eye on the US Embassy and German news outlet Deutsche Welle. The commission released a statement denouncing the “direct calls through foreign state channels to participate in unauthorized actions, and financing of the so-called unsystematic opposition from abroad”. In fact, this has been a long-running theme of US-Russia relations. In 2011, erstwhile US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, alongside the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the OSCE, decried the “voting irregularities” in Russia's parliamentary election. In response, Vladimir Putin held Clinton responsible for fostering instability in Russia, saying, “She set the tone for certain activists inside our country, sent a signal, and they heard the signal,” adding, “And with the support of the State Department, they began to act.” Blaming the US and its allies for “funding electoral processes” and unrest, the Russian government soon began targetting targeting ‘foreign-funded’ non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and multinational corporations (MNCs).
Turkey, too, has reacted strongly to criticism of its ruling government by the US. For instance, in response to a clip of President-elect Joe Biden saying that Turkish opposition leaders must “take on and defeat Erdogan”, Turkish Communications Director Fahrettin Altun said Biden’s comments “reflect games and an interventionist approach towards Turkey”. Altun rejected what he saw as an “attack” on Turkey, its “sovereignty”, and its democracy. Similar repudiations were observed following Turkey’s decision to redesignate the Hagia Sophia as a mosque, which several international actors criticised for widening religious divisions. For example, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan responded to Greek criticism by asking, “Is it you managing Turkey or us?,” adding, “Turkey has its own institutions.” Likewise, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hami Aksoy decried comments by EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell, saying that “nobody can interfere with Turkey’s sovereign rights” and that Hagia Sophia’s status is an “internal matter and is the property of Turkey”.
In the same way, Iran has repeatedly warned European Union (EU) member-states, the United States (US), and other allied countries over their comments on Tehran’s nuclear programme and on protests and human rights abuses in the country. Likewise, Cuba has for years accused the US and its allies of interference in its internal politics. Similar comments have been made by the ruling Maduro administration in Venezuela, which has frequently denounced international actors for attempting to instigate regime change. In fact, President Nicolás Maduro expelled the EU envoy to the country after Brussels imposed new sanctions on Caracas.
Admittedly, the imposition of sanctions is a far more direct form of interference in the internal affairs a country; thus, the situations in Cuba and Venezuela cannot be equated with Canada’s comparatively harmless remarks on the farmers’ protests in India. However, while India is not alone in its extreme reactions to criticism, sitting in the company of countries like China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela does little justify the severity of its response. That being said, this hypersensitivity is also observed among the less volatile and supposedly more ‘legitimate’, ‘credible’, and ‘democratic’ governments of the West.
For example, ahead of the 2015 election in Canada, the nation’s Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development’s Office of Protocol issued a warning to the heads of foreign diplomatic missions in the country to “not interfere” in Canada’s “internal affairs”. The note left several foreign and even Canadian diplomats perplexed, given the needlessly pre-emptive nature of the memo.
In 2019, the US levied sanctions on companies involved in the Norm Stream 2 gas pipeline project, which would facilitate the transport of Russian natural gas to Western Europe. This ignited a stern reaction from both Germany and the EU, who felt that the “extra-territorial sanctions” infringed on their sovereignty. Incidents like these have informed ongoing tensions between the EU and the US, and have in part contributed to German Chancellor Angela Merkel refusing to attend a G7 summit, and US President Donald Trump withdrawing (or threatening to withdraw) American troops from Germany and other NATO member-states.
More recently, Turkish President Erdoğan led aggressive calls for a boycott of French products in retaliation to French President Emmanuel Macron’s battle to tackle Islamic separatism. In response, French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin publicly warned Ankara to “not meddle in the domestic affairs of France”, with France ultimately recalling its ambassador to Turkey over escalating tensions.
Evidently, hypersensitivity is a common and pervasive feature of international relations, where governments view any sort of commentary on domestic politics by foreign actors as interference. On one level, this reveals the underlying suspicion and uneasiness with which all countries engage with each other, which is aptly illustrated by Canada’s attempts to preemptively warn against such comments before its election. At another level, however, it may indicate that countries consciously amplify and exaggerate their level of anger as a deterrent to further interference, in order to emphasise and project their independence and sovereignty. This serves a dual objective of pacifying the domestic population and assuring them that their government cannot be pushed around.
Ultimately, Canada’s comments on the farmers’ protests are likely recognised by both Ottawa and New Delhi to be fairly benign and are highly unlikely to damage strong bilateral ties. However, by cancelling a diplomatic engagement with Canadian officials and summoning their high commissioner, India has sent a clear message that such comments are not appreciated, and also projected an image of an indomitable government to its masses at home. Ultimately, while this may be perceived as hypersensitivity, India is no less thin-skinned than any other country in the face of commentary on its internal affairs by a foreign actor.
Is India Any More Thin-Skinned Than Its International Counterparts?
While India’s civilian population is certainly more hypersensitive than their international counterparts, its government is no more averse to foreign commentary on domestic affairs than anyone else.
December 15, 2020
IMAGE SOURCE: PMOCanadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (L) and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi