Indian Council of World Affairs

Abstract: India’s G20 Presidency marked not only a significant diplomatic achievement but also a paradigm shift in how foreign policy is communicated to domestic and international audiences. This paper argues that YouTube, a platform traditionally associated with entertainment, has emerged as a crucial vehicle for India’s public diplomacy. By effectively leveraging YouTube to narrate India’s vision, values and global objectives, particularly during the G20 Presidency, India has begun to institutionalise digital storytelling as a strategic foreign policy tool. This paper situates this transformation within broader debates on the mediatisation of diplomacy and argues for an institutional framework to sustain and enhance India’s presence on YouTube as a platform for digital statecraft.

1.  Introduction: The Strategic Value of Narrative in Diplomacy

In the contemporary international system, power is not merely exercised through material capabilities, but increasingly through narrative construction and symbolic diplomacy.[i][ii] As global diplomacy transitions into a public and performative arena, the ability of states to construct and disseminate persuasive stories is central to securing legitimacy, attracting partnerships and shaping perceptions. This shift is particularly salient in the case of India, whose civilisational identity, democratic values and normative aspirations as a voice of the Global South require consistent and coherent communication in domestic and global contexts.[iii] [iv]

Foreign policy narratives today must navigate multiple publics — global media, strategic elites, diasporic communities and domestic citizens, each with varying linguistic, ideological and cultural orientations.[v] In such an environment, platforms like YouTube, with their capacity for visual, multilingual and long-form content dissemination, offer a unique strategic opportunity. They provide the state with tools to not only explain but also humanise, dramatise and democratise international affairs.

2.  The Evolving Role of YouTube in Indian Foreign Policy Communication

Traditionally, diplomacy operated through closed-door negotiations, formal communiqués and elite-driven discourse.[vi] However, the rise of social media has significantly altered the communicative logic of foreign policy, making it more immediate, visible and participatory.[vii] In the Indian context, this shift has contributed to making foreign policy less abstract and more relatable to wider segments of the population.[viii] While platforms like Twitter and Instagram provide speed and visual appeal, YouTube stands out for its capacity to deliver depth, continuity and emotional resonance in foreign policy communication.[ix] More than just a social media outlet, YouTube functions as a hybrid space, combining features of traditional media, influencer culture and public pedagogy. Its low barriers to content creation, multilingual adaptability, long-form storytelling and algorithm-driven amplification make it especially well-suited for engaging diverse audiences on complex geopolitical issues. These attributes have enabled YouTube to evolve into a strategic narrative platform, one where the state, civil society and digital creators collectively participate in shaping public understanding of India’s global engagements.

Despite YouTube’s expansive reach, India alone accounts for over 491 million users; its utility as a tool of statecraft is underutilised.[x] Official Indian diplomatic communication remained anchored in traditional formats: MEA press briefings, formal websites and text-heavy publications. While the US State Department and the UK Foreign Office experimented with video diplomacy and digital town halls, India’s engagement with audiovisual diplomacy remained cautious.[xi]

This situation shifted markedly after the Galwan Valley clash and reached its full expression during India’s G20 Presidency; as evidenced by a sharp rise in public engagement with foreign policy-related content on YouTube; for example, videos like “How did India become the G20 President?” by Dhruv Rathee received over 5.6 million views within days of posting, indicating high public interest. [xii] Prior to this period, YouTube’s role in Indian diplomacy was largely limited to broadcasting academic panels, press briefings and ceremonial recordings—content typically characterised by modest viewership and minimal interaction. Although the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has maintained a YouTube presence since 2010, its early use remained bureaucratic and functional, with little emphasis on strategic storytelling or segmented outreach. Various scholars have described this phase as one in which digital diplomacy focused more on information dissemination than persuasion, serving transparency over engagement.[xiii] [xiv] It was only after the Galwan incident and more comprehensively during India’s G20 Presidency that YouTube began to be institutionalised as a strategic narrative platform, capable of shaping public opinion, constructing national identity in foreign policy contexts and amplifying India’s geopolitical messaging through emotionally resonant and accessible content.

3.  India’s G20 Presidency: A Digital Public Diplomacy Milestone

India’s G20 Presidency (2022–2023) unfolded at a time of global disruption, marked by geopolitical fragmentation and shifting multilateral priorities. Under the theme Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam — “One Earth, One Family, One Future”, India positioned itself as both a rising power and a voice for the Global South. [xv] What set this presidency apart was not only traditional diplomacy but also the innovative use of digital platforms, especially YouTube, to communicate foreign policy narratives to diverse audiences. 

For the first time, the Indian government integrated YouTube into its foreign policy strategy in a systematic and scalable manner. Through official channels like G20 India, MEA India and MyGov, more than 200 videos were released, covering themes, such as climate action, digital public infrastructure, food security and inclusive development. These ranged from high-production explainers to short cultural reels, making complex policy themes accessible and emotionally resonant.     

The strength of this approach lies in its layered communication strategy. English-language videos were tailored for international audiences — think tanks, foreign media and the diaspora — emphasising India’s diplomatic leadership and global partnerships. Meanwhile, Hindi and regional-language content focused on civilisational pride, national achievements and India’s role as a modern power. This dual messaging allowed the government to reach global stakeholders and domestic citizens without diluting the core message. 

A key enabler of this strategy was the government’s increasing reliance on informal actors—particularly independent YouTube content creators—to disseminate these messages across diverse segments. Operating outside formal state structures, these creators served as informal digital diplomats, translating complex foreign policy themes into accessible, vernacular formats that resonated with mass audiences. While this unconventional dependence on private content creators may invite concerns about blurring the boundaries between official diplomacy and popular media, it ultimately worked to India’s advantage. By leveraging the trust, reach, and cultural fluency of these creators, the government significantly expanded the visibility and relatability of its diplomatic messaging, deepened public engagement, and institutionalized a more decentralized, participatory model of foreign policy communication. 

A key innovation of India’s YouTube strategy was audience segmentation. Diplomatic milestones, like the African Union’s inclusion in the G20, were framed differently across audiences — presented internationally as a step towards inclusive multilateralism and domestically as a reflection of India’s civilisational responsibility and principled leadership. YouTube’s algorithmic infrastructure supported this adaptive storytelling, enabling localisation based on user language, geography and viewing behaviour. Content curated for an international audience further deepened India’s narrative by reinforcing the image of India as a responsible, values-driven and future-oriented global power. This narrative positioned India as the voice of the Global South, a reform-minded multilateral actor, and a technological innovator offering scalable solutions like Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI).[xvi] Platforms like StratNews Global and creators, such as Abhi and Niyu, portrayed India as a constructive middle power, championing climate justice, digital equity and inclusion, supported by UN data and global indicators. Domestically, Think School celebrated DPI as a homegrown success and model for the developing world, while The Deshbhakt used satire to connect foreign policy to daily life, highlighting achievements and narrative gaps. This dual-track approach not only enhanced India’s international image but also cultivated public legitimacy at home — a critical factor for sustaining foreign policy consensus in a democratic society. [xvii]

Together, these efforts transformed YouTube from a simple media platform into India’s digital stage, where its foreign policy identity was co-produced by government institutions, digital creators and the public. By fusing soft power storytelling with the algorithmic infrastructure of social media, India crafted a compelling narrative that resonated globally and domestically, turning YouTube into both a global stage and a classroom for citizens. This shift was clearly reflected in engagement metrics of major G20 moments like the Voice of the Global South Summit and the Delhi Leaders’ Declaration, which saw significant spikes in views, likes and comments, signalling growing public interest in diplomacy. Foreign policy, once confined to closed-door negotiations, had now entered the digital mainstream — visible, participatory and widely debated.

4.  The New Public Sphere: Foreign Policy Goes Vernacular

What makes India’s digital turn in diplomacy so powerful is how it brought foreign policy out of closed rooms and into everyday life. No longer limited to Delhi or the English media, global diplomacy began reaching Indian homes in Hindi, Tamil, Bengali and other languages. Channels like Bharatvaarta and StudyIQ transformed complex geopolitics into stories people could relate to, blending local languages, music, symbolism and emotion to forge a deep connection between India’s global role and grassroots identity.

This transformation was driven by two kinds of voices. Official experts — former diplomats, scholars and policy analysts — appeared on various platforms, simplifying G20 policies and international issues with authority and clarity. Alongside them, content creators like Abhi and Niyu captured the imagination of India’s youth, using sharp visuals, storytelling and pop culture references to make diplomacy feel personal, relevant and engaging. Together, they legitimised, simplified and humanised India’s foreign policy for a digital-savvy public.

And the impact was visible. The comment sections of YouTube videos became vibrant civic spaces where ordinary citizens debated, questioned and shaped the conversation on India’s global role. Viewership surged, proof of a nation eager to understand and engage with its place in the world.[xviii] Meanwhile, English content, often with subtitles, carried these narratives beyond India’s borders, amplifying the country’s voice across the diaspora and the Global South.

5.  Challenges in the Mediatisation of Diplomacy

Despite its immense promise, YouTube as a tool of digital diplomacy brings its challenges. The emotional appeal that makes content relatable can sometimes lead to oversimplification of complex issues or the spread of misinformation and unverified claims that risk distorting public understanding of foreign policy. The platform’s algorithm-driven recommendations, while powerful for reach, can also create echo chambers, where viewers are repeatedly exposed to content that reinforces their existing beliefs rather than encouraging critical reflection or dialogue. Moreover, unlike official statements or policy documents, much of the content produced for YouTube lacks archival rigour; it is often ephemeral, unreviewed and vulnerable to disappearing over time, making it harder to preserve as part of the historical record of India’s diplomatic engagement. Addressing these concerns will require the establishment of checks and balances within the broader social media ecosystem, promoting authentic and informed content creation while actively countering misinformation through institutional support and digital literacy initiatives.

6.  Policy Recommendations: Towards an Institutional Framework for YouTube Diplomacy

To harness YouTube’s promise, India must act with intent. The MEA and related agencies should establish a dedicated YouTube Strategy Unit — a team tasked with producing original, data-driven, multilingual content and working with embassies to localise stories for different geographies. A Public Diplomacy Fellowship could nurture the next generation of digital storytellers, students, filmmakers and educators funded and mentored to produce creative narratives about India’s place in the world. Partnerships with trusted YouTubers, educators and ed-tech platforms could embed foreign policy awareness into popular and academic culture. AI-powered analytics can help tailor content in real time, tracking audience sentiment, regional patterns and emerging interests. Critically, India’s foreign policy storytelling must become a continuous effort, not episodic. Series like India in the World or Ask a Diplomat can keep international affairs in the public eye, building an informed and engaged citizenry. While effective storytelling is key to generating impact among diverse audiences, it is equally vital that such narratives remain rooted in facts and rigorous analysis. In the long run, truth-driven storytelling holds the greatest potential for credibility, trust, and influence in the digital age.

7.  Conclusion:

India’s successful deployment of YouTube during its G20 Presidency illustrates the growing centrality of digital platforms in foreign policy communication. YouTube has shown that digital diplomacy can transcend elite audiences and speak directly to every citizen with a smartphone. It is not just another platform — it is a new public sphere. As India asserts its role as a civilisational state, a democratic power and a champion of multilateral reform, the strategic use of YouTube provides a critical avenue to shape global perceptions and domestic consensus.

To sustain this momentum, YouTube must be institutionalised not as an ancillary communication tool but as a core component of India’s public diplomacy strategy. By investing in digital infrastructure, capacity-building and narrative innovation, India can position itself as the “storyteller-in-chief” of the multipolar world — a nation that not only acts on the global stage but also explains, inspires and redefines it.

*****

*Neetu Yadav, Research Intern, Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA)
Disclaimer: The views expressed are personal. 

Endnotes

[i] Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs. [https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/joseph-s-nye/soft-power/9781586483067/](https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/joseph-s-nye/soft-power/9781586483067/).

[ii] Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2013). Strategic Narratives: Communication Power and the New World Order. Routledge. [https://www.routledge.com/Strategic-Narratives-Communication-Power-and-the-New-World-Order/Miskimmon-O-Loughlin-Roselle/p/book/9780415855529](https://www.routledge.com/Strategic-Narratives-Communication-Power-and-the-New-World-Order/Miskimmon-O-Loughlin-Roselle/p/book/9780415855529).

[iii] Hall, I. (2023). “Civilizational exceptionalism in international affairs: making sense of Indian and Turkish claims.” International Affairs, 99(2).
https://geopoliticalcompass.com/civilizational-exceptionalism-in-international-affairs-making-sense-of-indian-and-turkish-claims/

[iv] Vijayakumar, A. (2024). AI Ethics for the Global South: Perspectives, Practicalities, Policy Prescriptions. RIS Discussion Paper Series. Discussion Paper #296.
https://www.ris.org.in/sites/default/files/Publication/DP-296-Anupama-Vijayakumar.pdf.

[v] Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 55–77. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312142](https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312142).

[vi] Bjola, C., & Holmes, M. (2015). Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Routledge. [https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781315730844/digital-diplomacy-corneliu-bjola-marcus-holmes](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781315730844/digital-diplomacy-corneliu-bjola-marcus-holmes).

[vii] Johari, M. (2024). “Beyond Traditional Diplomacy: The Ascendance of Social Media in India’s Foreign Policy.” USANAS Foundation.(https://www.usanasfoundation.com/beyond-traditional-diplomacy-the-ascendance-of-social-media-in-indias-foreign-policy.)

[viii] Saran, S. (2017, September 21). How diplomacy works in the digital era. Rediff.com. https://www.rediff.com/news/column/how-diplomacy-works-in-digital-era/20170921.htm

 [ix] Naim, M., “The YouTube Effect.” Foreign Policy, January/February 2007.

[x] Statista. (2025). “YouTube users by country 2025.”(https://www.statista.com/statistics/280685/number-of-monthly-unique-youtube-users/).

[xi] Singh, S. (2018). Digital diplomacy: India’s increasing digital footprints (SSPC Research Paper). Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict. https://sspconline.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/digital-diplomacy-india.pdf.

[xii] See the video, How did India become the G20 President? – Dhruv Rathee. YouTube.[https://socialcounts.org/youtube-video-live-view-count/KHKC62qgp3Q?utm_]

[xiii] Garud-Patkar, N.: Is digital diplomacy an effective foreign policy tool? Evaluating India’s digital diplomacy through agenda-building in South Asia. Place Brand. Public Dipl. 18(2), 128–143 (2022)(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41254-021-00199-2).

[xiv] Palit, P. S. (2018). India’s use of social media in public diplomacy. Rising Powers Quarterly, 3(3), 151–171. https://rpquarterly.kureselcalismalar.com/quarterly/indias-use-of-social-media-in-public-diplomacy/.

[xv] Hussain, N. (2023). “India’s G20 presidency: towards a digital diplomacy strategy.” RSIS Commentaries, 094-23.https://rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/indias-g20-presidency-towards-a-digital-diplomacy-strategy/.

[xvi] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. (2023). India’s G20 Presidency: One Earth, One Family, One Future. https://www.g20.org/en/g20-india-2023/.

[xvii] The selection of these channels is methodologically grounded and reflects deliberate criteria: relevance to foreign policy content, audience reach, narrative versatility and alignment with India’s G20 messaging.{These channels were chosen based on their regular engagement with foreign policy and international issues, high subscriber counts, diverse formats (explainers, satire and analysis) and audience reach across demographics. StratNews Global is an independent news platform focused on strategic and international affairs, often featuring former diplomats and defence analysts, thereby serving elite and policy-oriented viewers. Abhi and Niyu are known for civic storytelling that simplifies national and global policy matters for a youth audience. Think School offers economic and geopolitical analysis through sharp, accessible storytelling geared toward aspirational and informed Indians. The Deshbhakt uses satire and pop culture to build political awareness, particularly among urban youth. These four represent different genres of YouTube journalism and commentary, collectively bridging state-led diplomacy and civic engagement. Other channels were excluded based on the lack of foreign policy relevance, thematic consistency, or influence in the G20 digital discourse.}

[xviii] Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27.