The Future of Indian Power: Hard vs.

Soft
August 14, 2012 10:19 am 9 comments
http://defenceforumindia.com/future-indian-power-hard-vs-soft-491
There has been considerable talk over the past few years about India as a global soft power.
This is a reference to the spread of certain aspects of Indian culture (such as Indian cuisine,
music, and dance) throughout the world and its rising popularity in the West. It is also a
reference to Bollywood and its growing international fan base that now includes Afghanistan, the
Middle East, Africa, and the Americas. The spread of these elements of Indian culture and
Indian-ness is often hailed as Indian soft power, as it was by Shashi Tharoor (watch his TED
speech on the subject here). However, I take a slightly different stance. I view Indian soft power
as virtually non-existent in its current state, and I also feel that it is unlikely for India to become a
true global soft power anytime soon (though it does have the potential to become one). Instead,
Indias rise to global power status if and when it happens will be due to its increasing hard
power, and India for the foreseeable future will have to rely on hard power to project its
influence abroad.
In order to analyze hard vs. soft power in the Indian context, it is first important to understand
what hard and soft power exactly refer to, and how they differ. Hard power refers to the
use of military and/or economic means to exert ones influence upon another. In practice, the
application of hard power tends to be fundamentally coercive in nature. The Indian covert
support of the Mukti Bahini and later the overt military intervention into Bangladesh, the Soviet
threat to use nuclear weapons against Britain and France during the Suez Crisis, and the
imposition of economic sanctions on socialist Cuba by the United States are all examples of the
utilization of hard power. Soft power, on the other hand, refers to the ability to attract and
seduce (as opposed to coerce) other parties. The American political scientist Joseph Nye, who
first coined the terms hard and soft power, identified three categories of soft power: culture,
political values, and policies. The utility of each of the three elements depends on their ability to
attractExamples of soft power may include the extensive Wahhabi influence throughout the
Islamic world due to Saudi state sponsorship, the emergence of Marxist-Leninist states in Africa,
Asia, and Latin America based on the model of the Soviet Union, and the ability of the United
States to historically attract large numbers of immigrants because of its sociopolitical values and
free, democratic society.
While examples of both hard and soft power abound in history as well as in the present day,
there is no simple way of measuring power or identifying the factors and conditions that lead to
it. A countrys hard power is a rough aggregate of various factors, including its GDP, total
population, defence budget, technological prowess, energy production and consumption, and
others. Statistics that attempt to measure hard power include the National Power Index and the
Composite Index of National Capability, both of which list India as the worlds third most
powerful country based on their criteria.
It is considerably more difficult to identify the underlying factors of soft powers than that of hard
vague, owing to its more vague and imprecise nature. Nevertheless, I will attempt to ascertain
specific conditions that enable an entity to exercise soft power. One of the most important
prerequisites for becoming a major soft power is to have native ownership of an ideology that
can be used as a means of influence; that is, the ideology should be recognizable as a distinct and
unique attribute of that particular country. During the Cold War, for example, the United States
and Soviet Union represented the de facto embodiments of capitalist democracy and Marxist
socialism, respectively. As mentioned earlier, Marxist-Leninist states emerged around the world
during this period (including Cuba, Angola, and Vietnam, among others) and allied themselves
with the USSR; likewise, newly-formed capitalist democracies like those of the three principal
powers of the defeated Axis alliance (Germany, Japan, and Italy) came under the fold of
American soft power in the post-WWII world and became close allies of the U.S. On the other
hand, it would be virtually impossible for a country like Pakistan to exercise any meaningful soft
power based on ideology, since Pakistans ideology is based on Islamic nationalism where it
views itself as part of a greater Ummah, but is certainly not recognized by the members of the
Ummah as its leader. In other words, Pakistan does not have native ownership over its own
ideology, which inevitably leads to Pakistan associating itself with other, more influential
members of the Ummah like Saudi Arabia and Iran, at the obvious expense of its own
subcontinental origins.
Another important condition in developing soft power is to have a universal ideology whose
values can cut cross national, cultural, and ethnic borders and attract a diverse array of peoples.
Countries that promote such universal values often tend to be pluralistic and inclusive in nature
and held together by a shared ideology and political values, as both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. in our
previous example were (the U.S. is only about 60% white, while only about half the population
of the erstwhile U.S.S.R. was ethnic Russian). On the other hand, countries that promote
ethnocentrism and militaristic ultranationalism, as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial
Japan did, will find it difficult to exert soft power, since such attitudes are inherently
counterintuitive when it comes to attracting and co-opting other peoples. Such countries would
be forced to rely on hard power to project their influence, which would historically fail all three
of the main Axis powers in the long run since their hard power could not compete with that of
their enemies.
In addition to the ideological and political aspects of soft power, it is also important to look at the
nature of cultural soft power. Many aspects of American culture, such as Hollywood, MTV,
Coca-Cola, and brand-name jeans are often touted as being elements of American soft power.
Fundamentally, however, such superficial, materialistic aspects of American culture cannot
and do not promote pro-American attitudes among foreigners. It would not be totally uncommon
to find that some of the most virulent anti-American protestors in Pakistan, Iran, and elsewhere
may also be avid fans of Hollywood flicks or regularly drink Coke. Although these aspects of
American culture may be popular throughout the world, they cannot be considered to be aspects
of soft power. Instead, meaningful cultural soft power would be able to significantly influence
the paradigm of other cultures, as the major religions of Christianity and Islam have influenced
numerous cultures around the globe.
Now that we have a better understanding of the difference between hard and soft power, and the
underlying features of both, we can return to the specific case of power projection in the Indian
context. The development of Indian soft power will rely ultimately on the promotion of
meaningful cultural and/or political values that will attract people of other nations towards India.
Just as the spread of superficial American culture cannot count as soft power, the promotion of
meaningless, superficial aspects of Indian culture like food, cuisine, dance, etc. will not increase
Indias power on a global scale. Nor does Bollywood, the supposed holy grail of Indian soft
power, provide the necessary muscle for such power projection, since Bollywood only depicts
the abovementioned superficial aspects of Indian culture. The immense popularity of Bollywood
in Pakistan and Afghanistan, for example, has not turned Pakistan into a pro-Indian country, nor
does it prevent Afghans (including the educated elite) from spitting on the floor whenever a
Hindu idol is shown on TV. The fact is that the Indian entertainment industry has virtually no
ability to influence the paradigm of its viewers, and can only bombard them with superficial
trash. Perhaps if Bollywood placed less emphasis on petty song-and-dance numbers and focused
more on producing movies that depict Indias history, culture, and values in a more profound
fashion, such paradigm shifts can take place among international audiences. But Bollywood in its
current state is far from being a true vehicle for exercising Indian soft power.
India may currently have close to zero soft power, but that does not mean it cannot become a
major soft power sometime in the future. On the contrary, India has perhaps the greatest potential
for exercising genuine soft power out of all developing countries. One major factor in Indias
favor, which would in many other cases be an impediment, is its diverse and pluralistic society.
As mentioned above, such societies are naturally able to attract other peoples and nations since
they tend to be less discriminatory and more inclusive than homogeneous, ethnocentric societies.
The definition of an Indian is fundamentally open-ended, universal, and expansive, just as the
definitions of American or Soviet are/were. The elastic nature of these terms allows a person
to become Indianized, Americanized, or Sovietized while still retaining aspects his/her
indigenous culture, which is why we can see labels such as Chinese-American or Soviet
Armenian. By looking into Indian history, we can also find examples of the spread of Indian-
ness to other countries. The time when Indian civilization enjoyed the greatest influence and
soft power was the time when Buddhism was actively patronized by various Indian kings and
spread throughout Asia. Since Buddhism is a universal ideology and is unrestricted by any
borders whether they are of caste, ethnicity, language, or other, it was able to attract adherents
from many different cultures. Indian universities, in the form of Buddhist mahaviharas such as
those at Nalanda, Vikramashila, and Odantapuri, were the Harvard, Oxford, and Yale of the
Classical period, attracting students from numerous distant countries. Indeed, there was a time
when Indian soft power in the form of Buddhism was felt from the Caspian Sea to Japan and
from Siberia to Indonesia, with India being regarded as the spiritual and cultural center of the
world. Buddhism in India has since disappeared into the pages of history, but the fundamental
Buddhist ideals of multiculturalism and all-inclusiveness still define Indian society today, and
can form the basis of future Indian soft power.
In contrast to heterogeneous and inclusive societies, cultural expansion by homogeneous and
more exclusive and ethnocentric societies tends to be much more zero-sum and total; rather
than co-opting other foreign cultures and peoples, they tend to be subjugated and assimilated into
a greater whole. The expansion of Chinese civilization is one of the best examples of such
assimilation, with the process of Sinicization continuing to this day in frontier regions like Tibet
and Xinjiang. Given the inherently coercive and one-sided nature of such expansion and
assimilation, it is not too surprising that China has historically not enjoyed the same level of soft
power of more pluralistic, inclusive societies like those of India, the former Soviet Union, or the
United States. Indeed, it has been greatly influenced by ideological and cultural aspects from
each of the three mentioned powers (Buddhism, Marxism-Leninism, and capitalism
respectively), but has not reciprocated the exchange by exporting ideologies of its own to any of
the three powers.
Having examined the status of Indias soft power in the past and present, we can now begin to
draw conclusions about the future of Indian power. Indias entertainment industry will continue
to define India for foreigners, but as described previously, this will not be an effective means of
power projection. Instead, Indias diverse and pluralistic society, and the fact that such a society
has remained in one piece in spite all odds, can serve as a much more potent platform for
exercising soft power. India might have some things to teach to the rest of the world when it
comes to multiculturalism, especially in a world that is rapidly globalizing and one in which
individual societies are dealing with alien ones on an unprecedented scale. On the other hand,
however, India itself still faces numerous internal problems, and India is still far from serving as
an effective model of a pluralistic society. It seems to me that India, at least for the near future,
will have to continue to rely on its ever-expanding hard power as a means of influence.

Raghunath
August 14, 2012
1:48 pm
Excellent analysis of hard and soft power.
Reply
ashish
August 14, 2012
5:27 pm
our soft power consists of vegetarian food and as far as hard power is concerned we have none of
itbecause we are vegetarians and vegetarians are mildees meekies and cowards.
Reply
LurkerBaba
August 14, 2012
7:01 pm
That doesnt even make sense
Reply
raj
August 18, 2012
5:57 am
go back under the bridge troll.
Reply
Subhash
August 18, 2012
7:38 am
So you say vegatarians are cowards. Ghandhiji was vegetarian, however he was not a
coward as you say: he went against the might of the British Empire and succeeded. Did
you know that Major Som Nath Sharma
was a Brahmin, and hence a vegetarian? He was the first recipient of the Param Vir
Chakra. Go read and learn about him in Wikipedia, instead of complaining like a waste
fellow. What religion are you anyway? Did you know that it is Hinduism that is the
dominant religion in India, and with it we flourished, 3000 years before Christ was even
born. So pay your respect of the Vedic and Hindu history of India. Did you also know
that it was all because of the Islamic princely state that India was so easily conquered by
the British? Did you also know that it was the Maratha Empire (a Hindu Empire) that put
up effective resistance against the foreigners. It is because of the foreign religions of
India that India is the way it is today. Just so you know I am not saying that India should
be a Hindu Only nation, but i just want you to know that Indias culture and roots all lie
in Hindism, and its vegetaraian followers. So instead of being an imbecile, go do
something worthwhile for the nation.
[Shame on you for getting berated by a 16 year old (me)]
Reply
KHS
August 19, 2012
9:37 pm
Lol.. the Troll writes his name too
Noob Troll
Reply
KHS
August 19, 2012
9:37 pm
Fantastic Article. This is what most of us do not realize
Reply
zaphod
August 19, 2012
10:04 pm
Excellent analysis. And, thanks for explaining why Bollywood maybe popular but doesnt help
India is exercising more influence.
As you implied, it will take some time for India to define a phrase that represents a person from
our country. Or, a brand that we can walk around with.
Reply
The Messiah
August 26, 2012
4:27 am
Good article.
Although you have specified that India will have to exert hard power first before soft power but
the exact nature of soft power is vague. Lesson on Multicultural to the rest of the world is
vague. What will be the exact nature of our ideology on multicultural ?
I think we will not be able to exert soft power until Indians start respecting themselves first
rather than looking at western ideologies and trying to fit in. Hard power is easy to achieve for a
country like India but soft power will need a change in thinking of Indians.