Defining Soft Power
Much
has been made of the concept of soft power enunciated by Joseph Nye in an
article in Foreign Policy in 1990.
According to Nye, soft power of a state consists in its ability to get the
desired outcomes vis-à-vis other states through the use of “co-optive” or
non-coercive power. Other commentators have tended to expand and interpret this
concept as the influence of a state vis-à-vis others caused by intangible
factors such as culture, life-style, ideology, values, institutions, etc. The
essence of this concept seems to be the influence that a state wields on other
states and societies for reasons other than its hard power, i.e., economic and
military might.
Some foreign policy experts have been
taken in by this concept and tend to believe that soft power is as important as
hard power, or perhaps even more important. They attach value to it in terms of
conscious effort that needs to be made to promote soft power. I would like to
emphasise that soft power has its effect not because of any special effort that
is made in this regard but because it exemplifies the success of a system or an
experiment that can be replicated elsewhere. There are, however, states which
make special efforts to project their soft power through institutions which
they like to describe as “Public Diplomacy” or “Cultural Diplomacy”.
In this context, a distinction can be
easily made between “Demonstration Effect” and “Cultivated Effect” of soft
power. Demonstration Effect implies the automaticity of an effect caused by the
success of a political, social or cultural experiment. For instance, the
success of democracy and rule of law in the United States and Western Europe
becomes an example to be emulated by others. No special effort is needed to
propagate the virtues of democracy in these countries. Cultivated Effect on the
other hand involves the effort to send troupes of dancers and musicians abroad
to acquaint other countries with one’s cultural achievements under the rubric
of cultural diplomacy or, to invite delegations of intellectuals and civil
society leaders from other countries to showcase them one’s history and culture
under the rubric of public diplomacy.
While the Demonstration Effect can be
easily seen in the form of efforts being made by other countries to emulate
one’s example, the Cultivated Effect is not visible and is not easy to measure.
I would therefore suggest that while soft power is important, too much effort
need not be made to impress others with one’s soft power or to impose it on
them. Soft power can at best be an intangible supplement to hard power but
cannot be a substitute for it, nor can it compete with hard power in terms of
its utility to influence other’s behaviour.
India’s Soft
Power Potential
The
most important instrument of India’s soft power is the success of its
democracy. For 68 years consistently India has held elections to its national
and state legislatures without interruption. The participation in terms of
percentage of voter turnout and diversity of ethnic and religious population
has been an example to the rest of the world. Not only the countries in India’s
South Asian neighbourhood but newly independent countries of Asia and Africa
have drawn inspiration from India’s success in democracy. South Asian
neighbours have in fact been seeking India’s assistance in drafting their
constitutions and conducting their elections.
In this respect, the contrast with China
and Pakistan is very telling. India ranks much higher than China in terms of
global attractiveness of its political system. China’s one-ideology one-party
based political system often remains a subject of ridicule, criticism,
curiosity and probity. India’s system evokes admiration and its openness
invites constructive comments, even if critical. The contrast with Pakistan is
even more obvious. India and Pakistan have shared history and both were born as
independent states on the same day. While Indian democracy has expanded its
horizons and evolved into a rich and multi-dimensional framework of fairly
inclusive governance, Pakistani democracy is still faltering and fledging at
the fact of its military dictators and religious megalomaniacs.
Another instrument of India’s soft power
that may be mentioned is secularism as a political value. India being a large
multi-religious society, religious equality and tolerance were enshrined as a
basic value in the constitution. It is difficult to say that India has fully
succeeded in abiding by this value. But substantially it has, and to that
extent it is the envy of the rest of the world.
India’s soft power potential also lies
in movies, music and dance. Indian movies have had worldwide impact. Their
popularity derives from their mass entertainment effect. Indian classical music
and dance may not have a mass appeal but are greatly valued by elite audience
abroad for their subtlety and refinement. Indian diaspora in developed as well
as developing countries have acted as promoters of Indian movies, music and
dance among the local populace.
It must be stated however that soft
power has limited effect in countries where attitudes are pre-determined by
ingrained antipathy. For instance, Pakistan is a country where Indian movies,
music and dance are passionately appreciated. But this has not made any dent in
Pakistan’s perennial hostility towards India.
India has a tremendous soft power
potential. But its due stature in the world cannot be achieved unless its hard
power is adequate to protect its own interest and contribute also to regional
and global security requirements.
____________________________________
