Where is our soft power?

India's engagement with (and now to?) the United States, solemnised through the so-called 123 agreement, has underlined the country's increasing manifestation of what in international relations is called hard power. This power is easily recognisable, comprising the usual knobs and bells of military and economic hardware and capability: the 10th largest economy, the fourth largest military, the fourth or fifth largest nuclear weapons stockpile, one of the largest arms-buying budgets in the world, an independent space capability, growing technological prowess in civilian and defence areas... it can be quite a long list. As the country approaches the 60th anniversary of its re-birth as a free nation, India can be justly proud of itself for having moved up in life.

Yet, in what must surely count as one of history's ironies, it may have lost what most nations would give their eye-teeth for "" soft power. There was a time when it possessed this in abundance and was, for that reason, at once an object of intense dislike as well as of intense admiration. There was the beacon of light that had been held out by Gandhi through the innovations of satyagraha and the non-violent battle for freedom from the colonial yoke; there was Nehru's stress on anti-colonialism, international peace and a refusal to be drawn into military blocs "" thereby giving India a role in sorting out issues relating to Korea and Cambodia and in championing the cause of many countries still struggling to be free; there was the marriage of the market with economic planning in an interesting 'mixed economy' model. Plus, of course, there was the age-old wisdom and philosophy of India, its two great epics, the Buddha's path to enlightenment, its manifold cultural expressions, and much else. Right up to the 1960s and 1970s, diverse groups of people from all parts of the world came to India as seekers and even as people wanting to participate in one of history's great experiments. That was soft power.

Soft power means just that: the ability to indirectly influence the behaviour and perceptions of others through cultural and ideological means. The term was coined by the Harvard professor, Joseph Nye, in a book called Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. The thesis was elegantly simple: if the objective is to get other countries to do what you would have them do, brute military and economic power are not the only ways to get it done. There is another way and it is via the subtler means of culture, values and ideas. That is, you alter the way people think. In 2004, Professor Nye wrote another book called Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. He argued that soft power goes beyond mere influence and persuasion; it is the ability to attract entire populations to your way of doing things. That is what India had at one time. That is what it has lost. That is what it needs to regain.

It is generally recognised that, for soft power to work, the country that wishes to use it must, as a first requirement, enjoy an excellent reputation and have qualities that others would like to emulate, and ideas that others find appealing. India's economic successes while (by and large) respecting civil liberties amidst widespread poverty is recognised as unique; its films and its food have a growing international following; its classical music and dance have always enjoyed a discerning audience. But when it ranks 127th in the human development rankings, is perceived as a corrupt country and is not generous in its dealings with smaller neighbours, the idea of India takes a bit of a beating. India may have been welcomed as a guest into the clubby world of the G-8; but it is far from being a country whose ideas and practices quietly make the world go round.