Rajdeep Sardesai’s hashtag hypocrisy: Gulf outrage deserves action, Indian outrage against Turkey must be ignored

The ongoing social media campaign calling for boycott of trade and tourism with Turkey seems to have rattled India Today journalist Rajdeep Sardesai who wants the boycott calls to stop. A visually disturbed Sardesai called the Indians who are running the online campaign against Turkey a “noise Army” while speaking to the Lallantop during a debate.

“We will have to build relations with Turkey later at some point. But today we are using social media to run campaigns. This, I think, is very dangerous,” said a miffed Sardesai. He urged the Indian government to ignore the social media calls for a boycott of Turkey and respond only through diplomatic measures, despite Turkey’s direct involvement in the Indo-Pak military conflict through the supply of combat drones and deployment of drone handlers.

Sardesai was quickly schooled by Lallantop Editor Saurabh Dwivedi who defended the social media campaign against Turkey saying that Indians who contribute to Turkey’s GDP through trade and a tourism have a right to express their disappointment on seeing the country side with Pakistan in complete disregard for India’s interests. “Rajdeep ji, it is a free world. If a large section of the citizens of this country feel that they do not want to visit Turkey, then they are free to decide,” Dwivedi said. However, Sardesai, kept repeating his stance saying this newly-found “internet nationalism’ cannot guide foreign policy as other panelists rejected her claims.

Ironically, Sardesai was among the first people who demanded the Indian government to take stern action against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma based on a social media outrage in the Gulf countries against her after Alt News cofounder Muhammad Zubair painted a target behind her and amplified her remarks on Prophet Muhammad by sharing an incomplete video of her riposte during a news debate on Times Now.

Sharma was responding to Taslim Ahmed Rehmani for his repeated offensive language against Hindu Gods and Hindu faith in a debate on the disputed structure at Gyanvapi in Kashi in May 2022. She questioned Rehmani about how he would feel if she shared details about Prophet Mohammad’s life as mentioned in Islamic scriptures.

Zubair took her remarks out of context and shared them on social media that subsequently spawned a diplomatic crisis for India after Sharma’s video created ripples on social media in the Middle East, with several Twitter users based out of Gulf threatening Sharma with dire consequences and tagging their leaders demanding they act against India. Several Islamic countries issued statements against Sharma and the Indian Government.

Back home, she was hounded by Islamists with ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ slogans and threatened with beheading. Riots broke out in several places in the country and her effigy was burnt, hung at many places. Multiple FIRs were also registered against her. In the aftermath, multiple Hindus, including Kanhaiya Kumar in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amravati were targeted and brutally killed for expressing their support to Sharma.

When senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai recently admonished Indian social media users for calling for a boycott of Turkey—over its open support for Pakistan and supply of drones to bolster its military—he framed the issue as an example of jingoistic online mobs dictating India’s foreign policy. He argued that India’s global relations should not be driven by social media outrage.

A reasonable argument, no doubt. But unfortunately, Sardesai’s record on this very principle is riddled with hypocrisy.

But in 2022, when attack against Nupur Sharma snowballed into a diplomatic crisis largely due to outrage stoked by viral clips and hashtags on Gulf social media. Hashtags like #BoycottIndia trended in countries like Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE. In response to this orchestrated online storm, Rajdeep was among the loudest voices in Indian media calling for government action—not against the foreign governments interfering in India’s internal debate, but against Sharma herself.

He argued then that the Indian government must urgently act to control the damage to India’s ties with Gulf countries by distancing itself from Sharma. The logic? Social media outrage in the Arab world was harming India’s image and interests. Sardesai didn’t seem to think foreign policy was above hashtag diplomacy back then. In fact, he amplified that very outrage by framing it as a diplomatic emergency that India had to “respond to.”

Fast forward to 2025, and Sardesai suddenly remembers that foreign policy shouldn’t be shaped by social media. This time, however, it’s Indian users expressing anger at Turkey—a nation that has not only backed Pakistan’s anti-India rhetoric on Kashmir but has actively armed it with drones, thereby enhancing Pakistan’s cross-border threat capabilities.

So when Indians, organically, voice their frustration and call for a boycott, Sardesai sees it as undiplomatic and reactionary. But when Gulf countries express online outrage over a domestic Indian political debate, his instinct is to demand immediate corrective action from the Indian state.

This double standard is jarring. And it is not journalism. It’s narrative management. Either social media outrage matters in foreign policy—or it doesn’t. Sardesai can’t have it both ways—conveniently railing against it when inconvenient while partaking in it when it aligns with his agenda.

In the end, the real threat to diplomacy isn’t social media. It’s selective outrage dressed up as principle

News