Read on Twitter
A lot of debate in India over Trudeau’s comment and even some shock over it. What I find particularly funny is the moral high ground being taken by many on Indian Twitter. (1/n).
First things first, Canada commenting on farmer’s protest is no different from India commenting on treatment of Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan to justify the introduction of CAA a few months back. Did India not know that this would impact ts bilateral relations?(2/n)
Leave out Pakistan but New Delhi did miff Bangladesh. India is known to actively influence its neighbours on issues that can be regarded as internal to them: Madhesi people & Nepal, or for that matter even Bhutan. Was that not internal interference? (3/n)
Talking on said words,PM Modi had endorsed Trump by saying ‘abki baar Trump sarkar’ in the US. Would this pass off as internal interference? Some say yes * others disagree. In short, many Indian actions can amount to interfering, will India stop ‘interfering’ or should it? (4/n)
No! every country, for various reasons, attempts to shape the politics of other countries to their domestic political or national favor. Questions over right/wrong R anothermatter. It is a de facto vs de jure debate. (5/n)
Disregarding the optics of morality that country play, this is how real-world politics plays out. The term ‘internal interference’ or for that matter even ‘sovereignty’ is subjective and is defined by countries based on the ongoing context and their preferences at the time. (6/n)
Some regard ‘words’ as internal interference (as is the case here) while others include more serious issues such as intervention in elections or regime changes. No concept in International Relations is a straitjacket so what passes off as internal interference is debatable.(7/n)
The reaction of another country (here, India) is also based on the situation at hand and which country has ‘interfered”. Had these words been spoken by sitting US or Chinese President, they wud be considered more potent & invited different responses (8/n)
The global power a country holds is always crucial when assessing verbal criticism. Canada pales in front of the Us or China and makes it easier for Ind to react in the manner we see now. Indian responses may have been different if comment was made by some smaller country. (9/n)
Similarly, would Canada have made such overt comments if the events were in the US? We did see Trudeau comment on the Black Lives Matter movement in the US but he was more circumvent about it. Instead, he was more overt when commenting on the Hong Kong protests. (10/n)
Even Chinese hit back at Canada for it. Did it invite a rethink for the Trudeau administration? No! Y? Cz his administration has made a choice and stuck to it. India-Canada relations are not that great, to begin with, & there is little that Ottawa would lose in short term. (11/n)
With the Liberal party in power, there is not much progress that one expects. Even when Trudeau visited India previously and kind of made of mockery of himself, his intention was not bilateral relations but his domestic constituents. Did it help? Of course, it did. (12/n)
Did it affect India-Canada relations? Of course, for the worse. No doubt, it is a loss for Ottawa to antagonise India, which is a very relevant actor in global politics, but I don’t see much happening anyway so Trudeau’s domestic considerations may make sense to him. (13/n)
