Kanwal Sibal (Advisory Board, VIF)
Much is sometimes made of India’s “soft power” as a diplomatic force
multiplier. This kind of power is defined as the ability to attract and
co-opt rather than coerce, use force or give money as a mean of
persuasion. Through this power a country can supposedly obtain the
outcomes it wants because other countries admiring its values, emulating
its example, aspiring to its levels of prosperity, openness and
availability of individual opportunities, want to follow it. Those who
believe in the reality of such “soft power” in international relations
think that Bollywood, yoga, Indian music, dance and cuisine, our
practice of democracy and pluralism amidst huge diversity give India
added diplomatic weight internationally. Is this true?
US
The concept of soft power may have gained wide international currency
in political and academic circles but that does not mean it is
unquestionable. The concept is very American, developed from the
perspective of the world’s dominant political, economic and military
power. One can do the academic exercise of separating the various
components of US power and establish a new category of “soft power” on
the assumption that American democracy, culture, values, Hollywood et al
exert draw the rest of the world voluntarily into the American orbit.
The US, supposedly, attracts others through this kind of soft power
to follow its lead, without the need to use force. This is a debatable
proposition. If the US lacked the overwhelming “hard power” it has, if
global institutions were not dominated by it, if it did not actively
propagate its political,economic and societal values world-wide, if it
did not control significantly the flow of information across the globe,
its “soft power” would be ineffectual. Switzerland has many of the
elements of American “soft power”- a veritable grass root democracy,
respect for citizen rights, individual opportunities, high levels of
prosperity, quality production etc. Yet no one talks of neutral,
non-military oriented Switzerland’s “soft power”.
Furthermore, have countries at large progressively embraced democracy
because of the American example? On the contrary, one now talks of the
attractiveness of the Chinese model of governance for developing
countries. Russia resists US ideas of democracy and the methods used to
promote it in Russia itself and in its neighbourhood. Despite decades of
US global domination, consolidated by the demise of the Soviet Union,
no democracy wave has engulfed the world, except in areas liberated from
Soviet domination in eastern Europe. The Arab world is seeing political
convulsions that have been inspired not by US democracy but by local
anger against protracted dictatorships, with power transferred to muslim
groups averse to western style democracy. Moreover, American democratic
freedoms and cultural values have hardly wrought change in the Gulf
monarchies despite their long asociation with the US. Its “soft power”
hasn’t prevented the US from being deeply unpopular in the Islamic world
at large.
The claim that US soft power draws strength from its commitment to
human rights would need to be reconciled with American military
intervention in Iraq that has exacted an enormous human toll. Regime
changes of the kind enforced in Libya and being currently promoted in
Syria, with Iran to perhaps follow later, are exceedingly costly in
human terms as whole societies are destabilized. In Afghanistan, and
even in Pakistan where the US has become deeply unpopular, radical
forces like the Taliban are unimpressed by US soft power, even with
regard to basic human values such as proper treatment of women and the
right girls have to education etc.
India
It is important also not to confuse entertainment with power of any
kind. There is no relationship between enjoyment of Hollywood movies and
political support for US policies across the globe. Because of the
highly unequal quality of these films, in some ways the picture they
convey of US society can be actually unflattering.
In India’s case, its putative soft power as a democracy has failed to
exert much co-opting influence even in its neighbourhood. Countries
like Nepal have actually viewed Indian democracy in the past as a
threat. Governance issues have tarnished the image of our democracy,
with the spread of corruption in all walks of life eroding further its
prestige. With China racing ahead in economic development and pulling
millions out of poverty, India’s failure to eradicate abysmal levels of
poverty still prevalent in the country, besides wide-spread malnutrition
and poor sanitation and hygiene, corrodes the attractiveness of its
model, which some have begun to see as increasingly dysfunctional. In
some areas the human development indices in India are lower than in
sub-saharan Africa. It is ironical that the democracy argument has to be
offered by apologists to explain the shortfalls in India’s performance.
Culture
Bollywood, which is loved by the Pakistani public, hasn’t reduced
Pakistan’s hostility towards India, just as the fondness of some here
for Pakistani plays and affection for sufi music does not change
negative thinking about Pakistan in India. Our secularism and pluralism
is hardly viewed with admiration in the Islamic world, where the more
conservative regimes actually see secularism as a form of heresy and
minorities are denied equal status in law. Our other cultural
attributes, however attractive, haven’t persuaded countries to be on
India’s side against dictatorships and military regimes that inflict
violence or make teritorial demands on us. Across the world people can
love Indian food and enjoy Indian art forms, but that does not lessen
political differences on key bilateral or international issues, just as
the popularity of Chinese food in India does not alter our thinking
about Chinese claims on Arunachal Pradesh or its strategic alliance with
Pakistan.
So, let’s not be soft-headed about the politically seductive force of India’s “soft power”.
