Scholars of International Relations define power as a state’s ability to influence the behaviour of other states to its advantage. Hard power implies the use of military and economic means to influence other states or political bodies; it is explicitly coercive and works best when applied on states with comparatively less military or economic power. In contrast, soft power is decidedly non-coercive, and it works through culture, foreign policies and political values. States wielding soft power do not bludgeon their opponents into submission by virtue of their military might, rather, they are able to attract and co-opt their competitors.
The concept of soft power was first propounded by Joseph Nye of Harvard University in the book, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (1990), to describe inveiglement not overtly based on force. Since then, the term has found wide currency in international affairs. Joseph Nye further developed the concept of soft power in the book – Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (2004). The current understanding of soft power is that it is the ability to influence, change, or control social and public opinion through diplomacy, strategic communication, foreign assistance, economic reconstruction, lobbying or branding.
Soft power is not a normative concept but a descriptive term. As such, there is no universally agreed upon method for measuring it. Some observers and analysts of international affairs have attempted to gauge the soft power of various nations through indices and country rankings. Soft power is more than simply influence or persuasion: it is attraction that leads to acquiescence. It is partly generated by governmental policies and public diplomacy. Popular culture and mass media are also sources of soft power. The success of soft power depends on the state’s reputation. Cultural intangibles like the persuasiveness of brands, favorable coverage in international news, and goodwill are all measures of soft power. The meaning of the term ‘soft power’ has been considerably expanded – to the point where it is routinely used in a socio-cultural context to include such diverse elements as cinema, sports, cuisine, art, and religion.
Soft Power in the Indian Context
India, along with China, is one of the ascendant economic powers of the 21st century, so it is only natural that attention be paid to its soft power potential. India’s demographic evolution – a predominantly young population, its widespread diaspora, rapid economic growth, and its increasing military strength have all been cited as reasons for its emergence. India is home to very diverse cultures, languages, climates, and landscapes. Moreover, it is one of the oldest countries in the world and has a rich syncretic religious heritage. All of these factors are potential soft power resources.
Post-Independence India enjoys a reputation of being benign, non-violent, and fastidiously democratic. In recent times, the Government of India has made concerted efforts to capitalize on its reputation to make India an attractive investment and travel destination. Some of the efforts that have focused on enhancing India’s international brand image – such as the creation in 2006 of a public diplomacy division within the Ministry of External Affairs, the worldwide expansion of the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), the Ministry of Tourism’s ‘Incredible India’ campaign, and the work of the Ministry for Overseas Indians (Dohlani).
Certain characteristics of Indian culture, such as yoga and Ayurveda, have progressively gained western attention and the same is now being aggressively marketed by the newly created Ministry of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy) of the Government of India. New-fangled mega-corporations like Patanjali Ayurved Limited and non-governmental organizations like the Isha Foundation and the Art of Living Foundation are also prominent in this regard. Upwardly, mobile India has been experiencing a resurgent, overtly militant, consumption-based religiosity for some time, as can be seen from the mushrooming of millionaire ascetics and sundry God-men. In addition to the niche markets within India and among the diaspora, Hindu ‘spirituality’ has become a high-value product primarily aimed at European and American markets. Due to its popularity, it may be considered a soft power resource.
India has a large literate population, and historically well-established literary traditions in English and many Indian languages. It also has a fair degree of mass media penetration with innumerable daily and periodical news and literary publications. In addition to the state-owned radio and television services, there are thousands of entertainment and news channels in virtually every Indian language. All this allows for a unique opportunity to present India to the world in flattering terms. Still, for all its plethora of print and television programming, hardly anything registers outside the country and has not anything like the same standing as BBC, CNN, or the New York Times.
Among the BRICS nations, India has the most developed and globalized film and television industry. Increasingly, the Government of India, as well as many Indian corporations, deploy the power of Bollywood in their national and international interactions. In terms of films produced every year, Bollywood outdoes Hollywood by a considerable margin. To an extent, the rising cultural influence of all things Bollywood has served to change Western perceptions of India as the land of snake-charmers and it has become a legitimate mode for transporting the Indian brand to a global audience. However, for most international viewers Bollywood is synonymous with Indian cinema. Bollywood’s brand success has had the very negative effect of marginalizing the linguistically diverse film-making traditions in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and many other Indian languages (Mukherjee).
India has always been a popular travel destination. As such, the country has significant possibilities of cultural diffusion by way of tourism. In recent years, the government has sought to market the so-called Buddhist circuit and generally play up India’s tourist potential through the ‘Incredible India ‘campaign. However, considering most tourists that visit India stick to certain well-known travel destinations, the number of Western visitors is rather small, and travellers from Africa, South America and China are almost entirely absent from among the tourists that visit India every year. Further, most archaeologically and historically significant monuments have been perpetually neglected. India is also not known for its museums, historical or otherwise. The badly planned and haphazardous conditions of Indian cities also make them particularly unattractive travel destinations. These factors limit India’s potential for cultural diffusion through travel.
Actualizing the Possibility
The usage of ‘soft power’ has evolved over time and these days one speaks of ‘smart power’. Present usage of the term has evolved to encompass perception management at an international level. In this context, given its vast and ancient cultural heritage, it stands to reason that India has tremendous soft power potential (Blarel). However, chronic under-investment in infrastructure, health-care, and education are severe impediments to actualizing India’s soft power potential.
In the first place, the Indian republic is marked by clear and present strains of anti-intellectualism and sectarianism which endanger the democratic ethos of the country. Worse still, these trends find a pride of place in the ruling disposition. Far from capitalizing on its cultural wealth, governmental encouragement to Yoga and Ayurveda follows the quest to project Hinduism into history, and to present ancient India as the progenitor of modern science and technology.[1] It is fair to say that India is being re–branded from a syncretic, tolerant melding of cultures and religions to an exclusively Hindu nation – one where mythology is substituted for actual history, Mughal and Muslim history is effaced or denigrated, and secular, pluralistic voices are suppressed. Needless to say, such ham-fisted methods, which are akin to propaganda initiatives, cannot enhance India’s persuasive ability as they depend on misperception or outright deception for their success.
In the second place, chronic neglect of public infrastructure and utilities in post-independence India has made Indian cities virtually unlivable and a most unattractive destination for travelers. The actual living conditions of most Indian people are indeed quite terrible. This makes it very difficult to promote a decrepit, poverty-ridden, overcrowded, and polluted country as a destination for the people of the world. Thus, attempts to portray India as a feel good, consumerist utopia, Bollywood notwithstanding, have limited traction at best.
Unless India invests massively in improving the living conditions of its people and embraces its rich multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious heritage and democratic ethos, there is every possibility that not only will it fail to efficiently use its soft power resources; it may even squander them completely.
Endnotes
[1] A number of startling unscientific and ahistorical claims have been made from public platforms and there is a clear tendency to deliberately mix up history with mythology. Possibly the worst instance of this is the Prime Minister endorsing the patently false view that cosmetic surgery and reproductive genetics were practiced in ancient/mythological India.
Works Cited
Dholani, J. International Yoga Day: A hard look at India’s soft power. Daily O. June 2017, Retrieved January 23, 2018, from https://www.dailyo.in/politics/international-yoga-day-2017-modi-china-soft-power/story/1/17926.html
Mukherjee, Rohan. The False Promise of India’s Soft Power. International Studies Association Annual Convention, San Francisco, April 3-6, 2013. April 5, 2013. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2246839 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2246839
Blarel, Nicolas. India: the next superpower? : India’s soft power: from potential to reality? IDEAS reports – special reports, Kitchen, Nicholas (ed.) SR010. 2012. LSE IDEAS, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. Available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/43445/
Deepak Jain is currently serving as a contributor for Synergy.
Leave a Reply