FOREIGNPOLICYANALYSIS

Unrealised Potential: Indias Soft Power Ambition in Asia

John Lee
EXecUtive SUMMary
No. 4 30 June 2010

Leading up to its independence in 1947, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill dismissed India as a geographical expression that was no more a single country than the Equator.1 If worldwide expectations of India at the time of its independence were low, the country did little to improve its international reputation over the next four decades, as New Delhi pursued policies that hindered its economic development and left it isolated from, and dismissed by, much of Asia and the West. Since 1991, India has made a concerted effort to reform its economy and re-emerge as one of the truly great powers in Asiaand with signicant success. Although building its hard power capabilities (i.e. economic and military) remains the top priority, New Delhi has been putting increased emphasis on developing its soft power credentials by using the attractiveness of Indian culture, values and policies to help achieve its foreign policy objectives in the region. This paper examines the concept of soft power as it applies to India. It makes the argument that Indias enormous soft power potential in Asia is based not on the growing popularity of Bollywood movies and Indian cuisine but on the fact that a rising India (unlike China) complements rather than challenges the preferred strategic, cultural and normative regional order. However, the paper also argues that in many respects, Indias existing soft power is weak and continues to fall short of its potential for two main reasons. First, New Delhi has long neglected soft power as a tool of statecraft and is only beginning to understand the value of cultural diplomacy. Second, and more important, it is doubtful that soft power in any meaningful (i.e. instrumental) sense can exist without formidable hard power resources. Subsequently, Indias soft power credentials are undermined by lingering doubts as to whether the country can continue to rise by developing its hard power credentials and capabilities. Nevertheless, the recent emphasis on building its soft power capabilities wisely plays to Indias strengths. If the country succeeds in winning over its sceptics, India will be well placed to be one of the principal leaders in, and shaper of, the Asian Century.

Dr John Lee is a Foreign Policy Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and a Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Will China Fail? (2009). The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers in Washington, D.C. and one in Singapore for their comments and criticisms, and Raoul Heinrichs for his feedback. All errors and omissions are the authors own.

www.cis.org.au

Introduction
In 1947 and in the midst of India gaining its independence, American President Harry S. Truman quipped that he could scarcely imagine anyone thinking India was important and admitted that his image of the South Asian giant was of a country jammed with poor people and cows wandering around the streets, witch doctors, and people sitting on hot coals.2 Two years later, the National Security Council conducted its rst evaluation of Indias importance and concluded that an alliance with the 300 million Indians living near the margins of subsistence would encumber rather than enhance Americas strategic position.3 Some six decades later, India is emerging as a genuine great Asian power. According to the investment bank Goldman Sachs, the Indian economy will quadruple in size from 2007 to 2020, and will surpass the size of the US economy to be second only to Chinas by 2043.4 Growth per annum in the once economically anaemic country has averaged around 7.5% since the early 1990s, reaching 9% for the past three years. Despite the current global downturn, growth will still likely reach 78% in 2010. The country also has the second largest military in the world behind China. Its navy, the worlds fth largest, is growing rapidly, is highly professional, and includes the British built aircraft carrier INS Viraat amongst a eet of 57 surface combatants. New Delhi is constructing indigenously designed aircraft carriers, has plans to construct its own nuclear-powered carriers in the near future, and boasts a home built and designed nuclear powered submarine.5 Military spending has been increasing at around 10% each year and is currently US$26.6 billion6all driven by the ambition to develop a sphere of inuence that extends across the entire maritime swath from [the] western Pacic Ocean through the Straits of Malacca into the Indian Ocean.7 In addition to the impressive rise in Indias hard power capabilities, New Delhi has been putting much greater emphasis on building the countrys soft power since the turn of this century. In a speech in late 2009, the then Indian Minister of State (External Affairs) Shashi Tharoorand author, journalist, human rights advocate, and candidate for the post of Secretary-General of the United Nationsargued that in todays world, it is not the size of the army that wins but the country that tells the better story, adding that India is, and must remain ... the land of the better story.8 In telling a better story, Dr. Tharoor cited the popularity of Indian television dramas in Afghanistan, Bollywood movies in Senegal, restaurants in the United Kingdom, and the fame of Indian information technology experts around the world as evidence that the world was growing to both know and like India. Elsewhere, he wrote: When a bhangra beat is infused into a Western pop record or an Indian choreographer invents a fusion of kathak and ballet; when Indian women sweep the Miss World and Miss Universe contests, or when Monsoon Wedding wows the critics and Lagaan claims an Oscar nomination; when Indian writers win the Booker or Pulitzer Prizes, Indias soft power is enhanced.9 The message: by promoting the attractiveness of Indias culture, social values, and foreign policies in addition to the countrys economic and military might, New Delhi will be better placed to join the rank of Asias great powers. This paper examines the concept of soft power as it applies to India. It makes the argument that Indias enormous soft power potential in Asia is based on the fact that a rising India (unlike China) complements rather than challenges the preferred strategic, cultural and normative regional order. However, the paper also argues that in many respects, Indias existing soft power is weak and continues to fall short of its potential for two main reasons. First, New Delhi has long neglected soft power as a tool of statecraft and is only beginning to understand the value of cultural diplomacy. Second, and more important, it is doubtful that soft power in any meaningful (i.e. instrumental) sense can exist without formidable

New Delhi has been putting much greater emphasis on building the countrys soft power since the turn of this century.

Foreign Policy Analysis 

hard power resources. Subsequently, Indias soft power credentials are undermined by lingering doubts as to whether the country can continue to rise by developing its hard power credentials and capabilities.

Indias regional great power ambitions

Indias historical presence in Asia is comparable to that of Chinas. For the 1,500 years leading up to 1700 A.D., the economies of India and China were neck-and-neck; individually, both were larger than the combined economies of Western Europe. Until the mid-1700s, Indias share of world GDP was actually larger than Chinas and the largest in the world.10 As recently as the late 1800s, its gross GDP was roughly comparable to that of Americas. From the 1850s until Indian independence in 1947, British India managed the empire from the Swahili coasts to the Persian Gulf and eastwards to the Straits of Malacca. British commerce, from the East China Sea to the South China Sea and into the Indian Ocean, depended on Indian power. Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India at the turn of the twentieth century, noted that the master of India was the greatest power in Asia.11 The point is that just like Chinas decline from the 1800s onwards, a weak and poor India is an unnatural state of affairs in light of two millennia of history. Even now, India represents around three-quarters of the population in South Asia, more than three-quarters of the regions GDP, and approximately two-thirds of the regions export trade. It already has the largest middle class in the world (between 100 million and 300 million people) and its population will surpass Chinas in 203040. Unlike the Chinese population, Indias age demographics is still favourable until at least 2050, with more than half the current population still under the age of 25.12 After gradually abandoning socialist economic policies since the early 1990s, the Indian economy has been growing at an average of 7.5% per annum, including forecasts of at least 9% for the current nancial year that began on 1 April.13 These strong foundations are matched by the undoubted rise in New Delhis regional and strategic ambitions. India is already a great regional military power and has the ambition to become a regional superpower.14 Prior to 1991, India adopted an economic policy that relied heavily on its relationship with the Soviet Union and a foreign policy that was non-aligned and even isolationist. After the Soviet collapse, New Delhi accepted the reality that the centre of global power was shifting to Asia and began its Look East policy in 1991.15 Since then, it has made concerted efforts to direct its strategic, economic and military policies eastward and embrace the notion that India ought to (and will) be one of the poles of power in this Asian Century. Indeed, Indias economic and strategic engagement with Southeast Asian powers (through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)) in the 1990s has blossomed into a full-spectrum engagement with major East Asian powers such as Japan and with the United States.16 As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted in 2004, Indias strategic thinking and defence planning should encompass Southeast Asia and beyond.17 This was echoed by the then Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Arun Prakash, who argued that it is imperative for India to retain a strong maritime capability in order to maintain a balance of maritime power in the Indian Ocean, as well as the larger Asia-Pacic Ocean.18 The policy thinking was reiterated by Indias current Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, who argued that the Indian Navys area of interest is not restricted to the Indian Ocean.19 Assessments of Indias blossoming naval capacity (especially aircraft carrier and submarine acquisition and development plans) and evolving strategic doctrine suggest an area of interest that extends from the Arabian Sea to the Indian Ocean through the Malacca Straits and deep into the South China Sea.20

Indias historical presence in Asia is comparable to that of Chinas.

The second face of power

Contemporary Indian ambitions in the Asia-Pacic stand in stark contrast to the rst ve decades of Indias inward-looking and conned strategic policy since independence

 Foreign Policy Analysis

in 1947, with a foreign policy focused predominantly on its land borders with countries such as Pakistan, China and Bangladesh. If Indias contemporary ambitions are largely built on the back of its rising hard power (i.e. military and economic) capabilities, ofcials and commentators such as Tharoor insist that building Indian soft power is critical to realising these ambitions. At rst glance, the worldwide popularity of movies such as Slumdog Millionaire and Indian cuisine have seemingly little to do with the increasing inuence of India in the world. But commentators and ofcials such as Tharoor are not alone. The importance of building soft power is now rmly established, is widely accepted, and has become a core component of the policies of other great powers such as the United States21 and China.22 Some observers of Indias foreign policy even go further in claiming that Indian foreign policy since the late 1990s has been characterised by a shift from hard to soft power strategies.23 Even though this argument overextends the role of soft power in Indian calculations (especially given the emphasis on Indias naval modernisation program), there is no doubt that the newfound importance New Delhi places on soft power is genuine and profound. Although countries have always pursued soft power in some senseand diplomats have done so for centuriesthe contemporary terminology and popularity of the concept go back to Joseph S. Nye Jr.24 The concept begins with an examination of power and how it is exercised in the modern geo-strategic environment. In the social sciences, power is dened in relational terms: the ability to inuence the behaviour of others to get the outcomes one wants.25 Nye argues that there are three ways to inuence the actions of others in international relations: coerce them by using (military or diplomatic) threats offer economic incentives attract or co-opt other states. The rst two use carrots and sticks. The third is the second face of power and the basis for a soft power approach. The advantages of hard power such as military and economic resources are both methodological and substantive: they can be measured and compared, and the effectiveness of wielding hard power is proven, direct and relatively easy to ascertain. Even so, soft power proponents correctly observe that the ability of hard power alone to compel states and populations to behave in a desired way is frequently overstated; states have often inuenced the decisions of other states and behaviour of foreign populations without using tangible threats or payoffs. Moreover, hard power alone cannot account for why countries respond differently to the rise of different great powers. For example, the rise of Imperial Germany at the end of the nineteenth century, the Soviet Union after World War II, and the rise of China in this century caused other great powers to balance against them. In contrast, after World War II and again after the end of the Cold War, the majority of powerful nations chose to side with America rather than against it. Doing so brought both prosperity and security to these countries, but it only partially explains why they were so willing to accept American leadership. For soft power proponents, Americas long-standing pre-eminence is as much about the attractiveness of American values, culture, policies and domestic institutions (that underpin its rise as a hard power) as it is about actual military and economic capacity itself. As Nye argues, America continues to have an unparalleled capacity to shape the agenda and preferences of others through its power of attraction, leading not just to inuence but acquiescence. If I can get you to want to do what I want, then I do not have to use carrots or sticks to make you do it The ability to establish preferences [of others] tends to be associated with intangible assets such as an attractive personality, culture,

Contemporary Indian ambitions in the AsiaPacific stand in stark contrast to the first five decades of Indias inward-looking strategic policy since its independence in 1947

Foreign Policy Analysis 5

political values and institutions, and policies that are seen as legitimate or having moral authority. If a leader [or state] represents values that others want to follow, it will cost less to lead.26 The growing emphasis on soft power recognises the ramications of globalisation and interdependence for wielding power in todays world. Greater political, economic, social and cultural interaction between different peoplesenabled by advances in travel, communication and other technologiesmeans that the global contest of national values, culture and policies is much more intense and important than it was decades ago. Greater participation by populations in the political and decision-making processes within states (brought about by the rise of the middle classes and democracy in more countries) also means that bottom-up perceptions of the values, culture and policies of great powers play a much greater role in determining whether foreign governments accede to or resist the policies of great powers. For example, more than 100 countries voluntarily host US troops on their sovereign territory. America has long been the primary provider of public security goods in Asia and depends on security alliances with Japan, South Korea and Australia as well as partnerships with Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, and increasingly India to maintain its military presence and project force. If American soft power credentials were weak amongst the populations in these countries, it would be much more difcult for their governments to support the American military presence or accede to Washingtons requests.

The growing emphasis on soft power recognises the ramifications of globalisation and interdependence for wielding power in todays world

The limitations of soft power

It is important to note that there are signicant weaknesses to the concept of soft power and its capacity to determine outcomes. First, the appeal or attractiveness of ones values, culture, institutions or achievements is impossible to quantify, inherently subjective and, therefore, essentially contested; it will experience signicant and unexpected uctuations. For example, the perceived worldwide decline in American soft power following President George W. Bushs decision to invade Iraq in 2003 may be real but is also not measurable. It is therefore difcult for political scientists and policymakers to determine whether American soft power declined or just its popularity and the policy implications of the distinction. Second, the effectiveness of soft power will always be contested because power is a relational concept: the ability to inuence the behaviour of others in order to get the outcomes that one wants. Linking soft power to specic policy successes and concrete outcomes is an inherently hazardous and uncertain activity. Proponents of the concept will readily admit that simply liking American values, culture and stories about its values and achievements will not necessarily lead states or populations to acquiesce to Washingtons objectives or support its policies. Indeed, there is a certain black irony to the fact that several perpetrators of the September 11 attacks in 2001 bought their last meal from a McDonalds restaurant. As Tharoor admits, an Islamic terrorist who enjoys a Bollywood movie will still have no compunction about setting off a bomb in a [New] Delhi market.27 Third, in the unforgiving world of international affairs, soft power cannot replace hard power as the most important measurement of capacity. Additionally, a country lacking hard power resources is likely to see the decline of its soft power credentials. For example, the great aw in Indias rst Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehrus foreign policy was that his grand design of India as a moral and independent force in global affairsand as the voice of developing countrieswas not matched by the countrys hard power. India was subsequently humiliated by China, another developing country, when it invaded India in 1962proving that soft power alone was ineffective in safeguarding Indias national security. Until it introduced successful economic reforms in the 1990s, India was dismissed as an anaemic, weak and irrelevant power that was

6 Foreign Policy Analysis

unworthy of adulation, much less emulation. Likewise, Russia suffered an enormous blow to its soft power credentials following the implosion of the Soviet Union. In contrast, soft power credentials often feed on a countrys hard power achievements. A country tells a better story when it has strong hard power credentials and achievements. No state or population seeks to emulate or follow a weak or poor state. American soft power is impressive largely due to its hard power resources. There is greater admiration of Chinese culture and civilisation, and greater acceptance of its leadership (despite a corresponding growth in suspicion of Beijings motivations and dislike for its political values) only because of Chinas re-emergence as an economic and military great power. Business leaders and intellectuals ceased to admire Japan and the Soviet Union after their economic aws were exposed. If the Chinese economy were to fail, the countrys soft power gainsand any admiration for the Beijing Consensus model of economic developmentwould also evaporate. These limitations emphasise that soft power cannot replace hard power in international relations or strategic policymaking. Instead, soft power needs hard power to demonstrate the formers strengths. Nevertheless, the value of soft power is still critical. A country with strong soft power will generally meet less resistance and gain more support from foreign governments and populations for its policies. Alternately, weak soft power (existing or arising from how a nation wields its hard power) means that a disproportionate amount of hard power resources are needed to achieve outcomes in foreign lands.

The enormous potential of Indian soft power

In 2007, Singapores Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew angered Beijing by writing that unlike Chinas rise, which created widespread apprehension throughout the region, much of Asia either welcomed Indias rise or was indifferent to it.28 Indias navy has an aircraft-carrier force; its air force has the latest Sukhoi and MiG aircraft; its army is among the best trained and equipped in Asia. India can project power across its borders farther and better than China can, yet there is no fear that India has aggressive intentions. Minister Mentor Lee argued that the fact India was democratic had something to do with it. In contrasting India with China, he concluded: The Indian elite also speak, write and publish in English. They hold a wide range of diverse viewsand to the degree that Amartya Sen, a Nobel winner in economics, entitled one of his books The Argumentative Indian. Few Chinese, on the other hand, speaklet alone write inEnglish, and what they publish in Chinese doesnt always disclose their innermost thoughts. What if India were well ahead of China? Would Americans and Europeans be rooting for China? I doubt it. They still have a phobia of the yellow peril, one reinforced by memories of the outrages of the Cultural Revolution and the massacres in Tiananmen Square, not to mention their strong feelings against Chinese government censorship. The enormous potential of Indian soft power does not simply arise from the fact that there is a growing audience for Indian television dramas and Bollywood movies, or that Indian contestants (along with those from Venezuela) have won more Miss World contests than any other country. But the fact that one likes Indian culture may not necessarily lead foreign governments and populations to accede and acquiesce to Indian foreign policy and objectives. Instead, powersoft or hardneeds to be understood within the context in which it is acquired and wielded, along with reasons for afrmation, leadership and inuence

A country with strong soft power will generally meet less resistance and gain more support from foreign governments and populations for its policies.

Foreign Policy Analysis 7

in the region. As exponents of soft power emphasise, the ability to attract or co-opt is not permanent but subjective and contextualised. What is attractive to regional governments and elites (and considered worthy of emulation or praise) needs to be understood within the framework of the preferred regional order and, more narrowly, the perceived interests of key Asian states and elites within these states. Additionally, what is attractive to particular segments of the population in the region is a function of dominant and pre-existing norms and standards (such as plurality, democracy and respect for human rights) that have evolved throughout the region and are reinforced and promoted by intellectuals, media and other inuential institutions. In his recent book, The Paradox of American Power, Nye put forward three criteria for countries with the potential for enhanced soft power credentials:29 A.  those whose cultures and ideals are closer to prevailing global or regional norms (especially emphasizing liberalism, individualism, pluralism and democracy) B.  those with the most access to multiple channels of communication C.  those whose credibility is enhance by their domestic and international performance. Nyes criteria offer authoritative and useful foundations for the soft power concept. As this paper points out, Indias enormous soft power potential in Asia is based on the fact that a rising India complements rather than challenges the preferred strategic, cultural and normative regional order. The following section will argue that Indias enormous soft power potential is based not just on its culture and values but the alignment of these values to regional and global standards. The section after that will argue that despite enormous potential, Indian soft power suffers from lingering uncertainty as to whether India can continue to improve its hard power credentials.

Indias enormous soft power potential is based not just on its national culture and values but the alignment of these values to regional and global standards.

The soft power virtue of democratic India

The great French international relations theorist Raymond Aron observed: in the twentieth century the strength of a great power is diminished if it ceases to serve an idea.30 This observation was about the United States but is equally applicable to the rising powers of the twenty-rst century. With respect to India, Minister Mentor Lees observations above allude to important points about the interaction between the attractiveness of a rising power and the existing regional and global order. The regional order in Asia since World War II has been characterised by open markets, multinational cooperation, international rule-of-law, and an evolving democratic community31all backed by American pre-eminence and its security alliances with key capitals such as Tokyo, Seoul, Canberra and security partnerships with Singapore, Jakarta, Manila and Bangkok. The strategic preference of all key states (with the exception of China) in the region is to maintain the existing order vis--vis newly emerging powers such as China and India. Even authoritarian China has been encouraged to rise within the current order in the hope that by benetting from it, and interacting within it, Beijing will eventually take on existing domestic and regional norms and processes, and become a responsible stakeholder and status quo power within Asia. Doubts remain as to whether Beijing seeks to rise as a responsible stakeholder in the longer term.32 After all, much of Beijings domestic and foreign policy is motivated by regime preservationthe desire of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to hold on to political power. Beijing feels uncomfortable in a region characterised by an evolving democratic community. In addition to raising suspicions that China seeks to eventually replace America as the pre-eminent power in Asia and Beijings unexplained military modernisation program, Chinas rise is generating as much apprehension as admiration in Asia. In contrast, the fact that India was already a robust democratic country has worked to its advantage, leveraging off what Michael Mandelbaum calls democratic exemplarism33

8 Foreign Policy Analysis

a paradigm emerging from the successful examples of not just the United States but evolving liberal democracies in Asia such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. As Manjeet Pardesi argues, The fact that India has not only survived as a unitary state in spite of its seemingly insurmountable challenges, but has done so within the framework of a successful democratic political system34 gives New Delhi enormous soft power potential. Admittedly, prior to undertaking economic reforms in the 1990s, a democratic but socialist India was viewed with contempt. Having embarked on a hitherto successful economic reform process, its long-standing democratic traditions and constitution mean that Indias re-emergence as a great power is eagerly welcomed by most regional statesas an important member of the evolving democratic community in Asia and a signicant counterweight to authoritarian China. As an editorial in Yomiuri Shimbuin (Japans largest circulating newspaper) puts it, India is an extremely important partner with which Japan can shape a new international order in East Asia because the two countries share common values of freedom and democracy.35 In a personal letter to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh shortly after Barack Obamas election victory, the President-elect spoke about shared interests, shared values, shared sense of threats, and ever burgeoning ties between our two economies and societies.36 Edward Luce, the Washington bureau chief and the former South Asia bureau chief for the Financial Times, says, Indias emergence as a stronger economic and military power over the next generation is much likelier to add to, rather than subtract from, global stability.37 Moreover, Indian politics and society are much more in sync with regional standards of a modern and legitimate socio-political system. For example, media freedoms in India stand in favourable contrast to Chinas tightly controlled and supervised television, radio, print and online media. Indian politicians and leaders freely debate issues and policy, and its institutions are transparent, which placates fears that Indias rise will challenge regional norms and values. Unlike Chinas intolerance for pluralism, Indias domestic habits of negotiation and compromise from 60 years of robust democracy offer greater reassurance to other states that these virtues will be carried over in New Delhis interaction with them. Furthermore, how India chooses to rise provides additional reassurance to status quo states. As Jacques Hymans correctly observes, Indian policy since economic reforms from the mid-1990s has been to rise in the world through full and unembarrassed participation in the American-led world (and regional) order.38 Although India is not seeking to become a security ally of America, New Delhi is fundamentally satised with the existing strategic order. Its strategic objectives are remarkably aligned with those of America and other key Asian states. Unlike Japan and China, it has no history of invasion or domination in East and Southeast Asia, and it enjoys remarkably strong and cooperative relationships with all key Asian power centres, with the exception of Beijing. As Singapores Foreign Minister George Yeo puts it, We see Indias presence as being a benecial and benecent one to all of us in South-east Asia.39 (emphasis added) Because of the nature of Indian politics and society, political and strategic elites are increasingly seeing India not only as a muscular but also predictable, stabilising, cooperative and attractive rising power. The notable lack of apprehension of Indias re-emergence is demonstrated by the remarkable speed with which India has been welcomed as a favoured and critical security partner and player in the region. For example, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, and the Philippines all conduct extensive naval exercises with India.40 Australia has recently requested that it be allowed to take part in the annual India-US joint Malabar naval exercises.41 Southeast Asian states readily accept the Indian Navy patrolling the Andaman Sea at the western end of the Malacca Straits (while politely rebufng Chinese offers to play a greater role in supervising the straits).42 In the broader Indian Ocean (as well as the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal), the US Pacic Command is eager to expand further naval cooperation with India in protecting the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean. America and

The fact that India was already a robust democratic country has worked to its advantage.

Foreign Policy Analysis 

Indias pluralistic and liberal political system and values are remarkably aligned with the global and regional media zeitgeist.

India will likely increase the scope and frequency of the already extensive naval and air force exercises and planning in the Indian Ocean sea lanes43 as well as deepen their broad-based dialogues and briengs, which cover a wide range of matters relevant to South, Central and Southeast Asia, Chinese military developments, policy in the Indian and Pacic oceans, as well as US policy towards Iran and North Korea. The swiftness and enthusiasm with which Washington pushed through the 2008 US-India nuclear agreement and the India waiver in the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) approving the sale of uranium to India in 2008 are also revealing. In the context of negotiating a framework for the nuclear deal, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke frequently about the United States helping India to become a world power.44 This recognition as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology makes India the rst and only state to be recognised as a legitimate nuclear power without being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In addition to Indias perfect non-proliferation record, it is unlikely that members of the NSG would have granted India the waiver if its rise was perceived as a challenge to, rather than strengthening, the global or regional order. Soft power can also be enhanced through how states wield hard power. Indias hard and soft power reputation was immeasurably enhanced in the wake of the 2004 Asian tsunami when the Indian Navy took on its most extensive peacetime mission to help people in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. More than 30 ships and 20,000 personnel assisted these countries in locating and evacuating survivors, and providing food, water and power to those left stranded.45 Unlike Chinas investment in its growing and menacing eet of submarines, which can only be used for sea-denial purposes, Indias hard and soft power was shown in its best light: competent but also responsible, cooperative and trustworthy.

Communication channels, media and Indian soft power

Many articles on Indias soft power place great emphasis on the countrys vibrant and prolic television and Bollywood movie industries, and the popularity of these shows not only in countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan but also among the 22 million strong Indian diaspora around the world, including 2.7 million in the United States and up to ve million throughout Asia. These television dramas and movies do much to promote Indian popular culture and potentially play a role in enhancing the attractiveness of India. But their immediate impact should not be overstated. Instead, international news media, which is dominated by a handful of outlets such as CNN, BBC, Reuters and AFP based in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and France, are the greater enabler of Indian soft power potential. Importantly, the journalistic culture within these outlets, and also the main outlets based in countries such as Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and Australia (and the perspectives of its journalists), overwhelmingly reects the dominant democratic exemplar values of pluralism, individualism, governments being subject to the rule of law, openness, and popular political participation. This is a boon for India and the countrys image. For example, Indias pluralistic and liberal political system and values are remarkably aligned with the global and regional media zeitgeist. International journalists hold the ercely independent Indian mediaand by extension the Indian social and political systemin high regard. India does not have to convince the democratic world that it is just like us. This was well illustrated by Western media coverage of the worlds biggest-ever Indian parliamentary elections in 2009, held over 28 days and involving more than 700 million voters,46 which was favourable and admiring. The positive, if unquantiable, effect this had for Indian soft power is unquestioned. Indeed, countries such as China have long understood the power of dominant international media outlets in (negatively) inuencing foreign perceptions of China and

10 Foreign Policy Analysis

the CCP. As a country that is both rising within the existing order and challenging aspects of it, Beijing is extremely aware and sensitive to foreign perceptions of China, the CCP, and its foreign policies. Research reports released by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and ofcial documents show that the Chinese hold Western and other Asian media responsible for creating a negative image of China. Notable instances of this include then Minister of Chinas State Council Information Ofce (and current Vice Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee) Zhao Qizheng complaining to counterparts in Moscow that Western media control of public opinion was damaging Chinas image in the world. Zhao argued, Using their media dominance, they [Western media] are stressing the negatives in China without pointing out recent positive developments.47 Likewise, Wang Guoqing, the deputy chief of Chinas State Council Information Ofce, in declaring that although better than the 1990s, around 40% of articles in mainstream Western media [were] prejudiced.48 Other examples include coverage of the Chinese Olympic Torch relay in 2008, which focused heavily on Chinas poor human rights practices and other (political, social and environmental) failings within the country.49 Political events such as the meeting of Chinas National Peoples Council are frequently mocked with headlines such as Chinese democracy in action: making sure that Chinas supreme legislative body is toothless and littered with (accurate but derisive) phrases such as Chinas rubber-stamp Parliament, hand-picked representatives, and the CCP keeping tight control on the legislature in an effort to minimise embarrassment to the party leadership.50 Tellingly, Beijing is establishing its own global TV network (CCTV) and newspaper (Global Times) in an explicit attempt to combat what it sees as inherent regional and global media bias against China.

Indian soft power remains relatively weak amongst economic and social elites as well as the general population.

Falling short of potential: Indias soft power weaknesses

Indias soft power potential amongst political and strategic elites throughout the region is signicant in the sense that regional capitals view a rising India as a cooperative, attractive and non-threatening country. Hence, these elites are eager to help India continue to rise and facilitate its deepening integration into the existing global order. While it is true that a rising power must have sufcient hard power abilities to be viewed as an important military or economic partner,51 the fact that New Delhi is achieving many of its foreign policy objectives not through coercion or inducements but because of widespread acceptance of the attractiveness of its (political) culture, values and aims demonstrates the soft power potential of India. Although political and strategic elites in many countries are enthusiastic about Indias rise and are eager to embrace New Delhi as a security partner, the country is still failing to achieve its soft power potential in other important and more general contexts. South Asia expert Stephen Cohen could well be correct when he says that the one remarkable thing about public opinion in the US that everybody likes India.52 But the fact that the general public in many countries like India (or does not fear its rise) does not necessarily translate into broad-based Indian soft power. Although accurate measurement of soft power will always be elusive and contested, studies indicate that Indian soft power remains relatively weak amongst economic and social elites as well as the general population. This is important since it is more difcult for governments to offer support for, or acquiesce to, Indian ambitions, policies, and actions if Indian soft power credentials are poor amongst these elites and the general population within that country. In the Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index, which looks at categories such as governance, perceptions about its cultural achievements, and perceptions of its people of the top 50 countries, India was ranked 26 between Egypt and Poland in 2009, up one place since 2008.53 Indias ranking in governance was 46 (China was 49), culture was 17 (China was 7), and people was 23 (China was 35). In the Heritage Foundations Index of Economic Freedom,54 which looks at criteria such as the security

Foreign Policy Analysis 11

The lack of government control over Indias mediarightly regarded as a liberal virtue means that the government cannot easily devise or shape a consistent message about Indian successes to a foreign audience.

of property rights, nancial and investment freedom, and labour mobility, India was ranked 124 between Cote dIvoire and Moldova (China was 140). In Transparency Internationals Corruption Perception Index 2009,55 India was ranked 14 in the AsiaPacic and 84 in the world (China was 13 and 79 respectively). Other surveys suggest that Indian inuence (hard and soft power) is viewed lowly by the general population in a number of important countries. In a 2006 report published by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs,56 India fared poorly in a multinational survey of public opinion. The American, Chinese and the South Koreans ranked India last (from a list of great powers comprising the United States, China, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan and India) in terms of its current inuence and the inuence it will have in a decade from 2006. India was also ranked last by the Chinese and second last by the Americans in current and future leadership in technology and innovation. Interestingly, the survey asked the same questions of the Indians, who ranked themselves second on how much inuence India has now and will have in 2016. This suggests a signicant gap between Indias assured perception of itself and the outside worlds perception of India. As the following section argues, India is suffering from a perception problem.

Indias perception problem

Nye observed that soft power credentials are enhanced by a countrys domestic performance. In practice, a country not regarded as having impressive hard power strengths and achievements is severely hindered in building its soft power credentials. In Indias case, its economic achievements since 1991, although impressive, are often ignored or dismissed by economic and social elites, as well as the general public in foreign countries for several reasons. As Cohen observes, Much to the chagrin of the [Indian elites], India has stirred the western imagination more because of its exotic and esoteric qualities than because of its power and inuence as a state.57 This is occurring for several reasons.
(a) Lack of social progress

The contemporary Indian economy remains a combination of the medieval and the modern. India (including its diaspora) still conjures up images of mass poverty, underclothed and underfed people, and street children scavenging for food in rubbish tips and open drains because that is still the reality throughout much of modern India. Despite boasting the worlds largest middle class, around 22% of its one billion-strong population still lives below the World Bank dened poverty line of US$1.25 per day58 (compared to about 10% of the population or 130 million people in China). Similarly, despite the emergence of a vibrant, modern, urbane Indian middle class numbering in the hundreds of millions, the discriminatory caste system has endured, especially in rural India and the smaller towns. Although many of the lower castesthe so-called dalitsnow make up an increasing proportion of the economic and political class,59 India is still as well-known for this archaic and discriminatory system as for a country with the fastest growing middle class in the world.
(b) The lack of control over Indias media

State-controlled media is often used to push carefully crafted messages about a countrys successes and the wisdom of government policy, whereas an independent media often exposes a countrys failings and criticises government policies. The lack of government control over Indias mediarightly regarded as a liberal virtuemeans that the government cannot easily devise or shape a consistent message about Indian successes to a foreign audience. Foreign audiencesincluding Indian the diaspora60frequently associate India with chaos and inequality because Indias social ills are openly displayed, talked about and debatedas much by its domestic media as foreign media.

12 Foreign Policy Analysis

On the other hand, authoritarian China is often spoken about as a system that promotes order and raising living standards across the board, mainly because the Chinese government tells a better story. For more than a decade, the Chinese media have persistently pushed the mantra of Chinas peaceful development and the achievements of the CCP in alleviating poverty.61 Almost all Chinese media are state-controlled, so information is restricted and social failings are largely hidden from foreign eyes. For example, it is not well known that China has the greater problem with civil disturbances, with ofcial records showing instances of mass unrest (dened as 15 more people protesting against government ofcials) rising from a few thousand in the mid-1990s to more than 53,000 instances in 2003, more than 87,000 instances in 2005,62 and a reputed 124,000 instances in 2009.63 Similarly, using the widely accepted GINI coefcient measurement of income inequality, China has actually become the most unequal society in all of Asia,64 while absolute levels of poverty since 2000 have actually increased in China.65
(c) Indias unproven record of structural reform

Although India has world-class micro-level economic strengths in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, information technology, and telecommunications, its record in achieving widespread and enduring macro-economic and structural reform is still unproven. For example, India is yet to undertake wholesale land reform, especially with regard to rural property rights.66 While the services labour market is exible and efcient, its industrial labour market needs to be liberalised. Shortfalls in hard infrastructure seriously threaten to signicantly slow Indias growth. At present, 2% of Indias roads carry 40% of its trafc, the remainder being unable to support heavy vehicles.67 Inadequate energy distribution grids lead to frequent power shortages. These inadequacies are also matched by shortfalls in educational infrastructure. Only two-thirds of the population is literate, and only about 60% of Indian children are enrolled in secondary school.68 India will be denied its demographic dividend of having a young population if the number of secondary schools and quality of education does not increase and improve. Furthermore, even though the Indian National Congress Party under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has attracted much praise for its reform record, there are still suspicions that regional politicians, who frequently champion populist policies drawn from the countrys socialist past, could derail Indias momentum toward further reform. Foreign audiences are not yet convinced that India is irreversibly set on a path of modernisation and prosperity, a point clearly brought out by the survey data presented above. The Indian success storyso important for its soft power credentialsis still a speculative rather than certain bet.
(d) Indias belated entry into the global economy

Foreign audiences are not yet convinced that India is irreversibly set on a path of modernisation and prosperity.

Trade and foreign investment can serve as an important enhancer of a countrys soft power. For example, Chinas public relations rhetoric of pursuing win-win relationships has been signicantly bolstered by its deep participation in the regional and global trading system and status as a major foreign direct investment (FDI) destination.69 In contrast, Indias economic ties with other states are still relatively small. For example, although trade between Indian and ASEAN reached US$38 billion in 2008, trade between China and ASEAN already surpasses US$200 billion.70 Trade between India and the United States amounted to almost US$40 billion over the 200809 nancial year, while US-China trade amounted to more than US$400 billion in 200708 (with US exports to China at around US$65 billion).71 Indias share of global trade is only 1.5%72 while Chinas is 78%.73 Moreover, FDI in India has jumped from a base of zero in 1990 to US$6 billion in 2003 to US$27 billion in 2008,74 but this is still dwarfed by the US$92.4 billion of net capital inows into China in 2008.75 American FDI in India was still only

Foreign Policy Analysis 13

US$1.8 billion76 in 200809, although this is tipped to rise signicantly in the decade ahead. India has only begun the process of deepening economic and social interaction with other states compared to the CCP, which has been pursuing pursue an East Asian exportled strategy of development from the 1990s onwards. Until recently, Indias development approach had been a domestically driven one, so its economic role in the regional and global economy is much smaller than that of a country with a population of one billion in the minds of foreign economic and social elites.

The poor use of cultural diplomacy in Indian statecraft Indian consular staff are much less interested and effective at reaching out to, and utilising, the Indian diaspora to enhance Indias global image.
Government-led initiatives for a charm offensive77 designed to placate foreign concerns about its rise and build its soft power credentials come naturally to authoritarian systems such as the one in China. In contrast, Indias robust but disorderly democracy, combined with its Cold War era tradition of non-alignment and unconditional independence,78 means that top-down efforts at promoting brand India are piecemeal and poor. In a positive sign, India has announced plans to create 514 new positions in its Ministry of External Affairs over the next 10 years.79 Yet, both Indian and foreign commentators persistently complain that the post-Nehru habits of aloofness, bureaucratic stubbornness, and diplomatic neglect still impede the building of the countrys soft power. The comparison between Beijings disciplined and centrally mandated charm offensive with Indian diplomatic complacency is telling. China has more than 260 Confucius Institutes in 75 countries,80 and is aiming for 500 by the end of 2010 (teaching 100 million foreigners) and 1,000 by 2020.81 Foreign students are actively encouraged to learn about Chinese culture and (the CCPs version of ) Chinese history. In contrast, India has only 24 cultural centres in 21 countries functioning under its missions abroad.82 As Saurabh Shukla concludes, India has a long way to go compared to how other major countries like the US, the UK, Japan and China use cultural diplomacy as an essential tool of statecraft.83 While Chinese political, diplomatic and military ofcials are constantly reminded about the importance of building Chinas comprehensive national power, foreign commentators lament the poor understanding of the importance of soft power amongst Indian counterparts, as the following anecdote suggests: A little over a year ago, I gave a talk in New Delhi to a group of senior Indian policy and military analysts on Indias soft-power advantage. There were many retired generals in the room One gentleman wanted a clarication: Soft power, then, does not mean soft country? No, I replied, it does not 84 Indeed, while Chinese ofcials and diplomatic staff work assiduously and closely with foreign universities, institutes and corporations to promote the study of Chinese history and culture, their Indian counterparts rarely venture beyond ofcial consular responsibilities and activities to promote India. Unlike Chinese diplomatic activities and efforts, Indian consular staff are much less interested and effective at reaching out to, and utilising, the Indian diaspora to enhance Indias global image. This is despite the fact that Indian communities in countries such as the United States and Australia are amongst the most successful. For example, the Indian diaspora in the United States have a higher per capita income than any other ethnic grouping; more than one-quarter of start-ups in Californias Silicon Valley have been founded by Indians;85 and the second largest source of skilled migrants to Australia is from India.86 Finally, the fact that the importance and success of modern Indian is undersold is reected in several reports showing the paucity of India studies in major American universities, with the relatively small and isolated strategic communities within think tanks left to take up the slack.87 Indeed, a recent study showed that out of 2,500 higher learning institutions in political science in America, only 125 offered courses on India.88

14 Foreign Policy Analysis

Conclusion
Having abandoned the narrative of India as victim of the international system, Indian elites are becoming more condent in India re-emerging as a great power in Asia. But, like China, India will remain a relatively poor country (in terms of GDP per capita) for decades. Therefore, just as Beijing wisely measures its progress in terms of building comprehensive national power, New Delhi now seeks to measure its progress by its reserves of both hard and soft power. Indias attractiveness and soft power potential lie not in its Nehruvian traditions of socialism or non-alignment but in the fact that its rise (unlike Chinas) complements rather than challenges the preferred strategic, cultural and normative regional order. Although this provides a strong foundation for its soft power credentials, India can only realise its soft power potential if it proves to the world that the country can continue to undertake reforms needed to build its hard power capabilities. But if New Delhi succeeds in this regard, Indias rise will meet little resistance89 and New Delhi will be well placed to be one of the principal leaders in, and shaper of, the Asian Centurya remarkable feat for a country that was very recently mocked, ignored or dismissed as a geographical expression by the then great powers of the world.

Endnotes
1 Quoted in Shashi Tharoor, E pluribus, India: is Indian modernity working? Foreign Affairs 77:1 (1998), 128. 2 Quoted in Nick Cullather, Hunger and containment: how India became important in US Cold War strategy, India Review 6:2 (2007), 60. 3 National Security Council, NSC-48: The position of the United States with respect to Asia (30 December 1949). 4 BRICs and Beyond (New York: Goldman Sachs Economics Department, November 2007). 5 See India can make N-powered aircraft carrier: Kakodkar, The Times of India (5 August 2009). 6 Indias 20082009 Military Budget, Defence Industry Daily (9 March 2008). 7 Vijay Sakhuja, Emerging contours of Asian naval power, Opinion Asia (5 February 2007). 8 Soft power can make India a superpower: Tharoor, India Outlook (7 November 2009). 9 Shashi Tharoor, Indias Bollywood power, The Japan Times (9 January 2008). 10 See Angus Maddison, The World Economy: Historical Studies (Paris: OECD, 2003). 11 Cited in C. Raja Mohan, Crossing the Rubicon (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003). 12 Arjun Adlakha, Population trends: India, US Department of Commerce International Brief (April 2009). 13 See Geoff Hiscock, Ambani sees soft power boosting Indian growth, The Australian (1 February 2010). 14 See Shashank Joshi, Sixty-ve thousand tonnes of ambition, RUSI Analysis (10 December 2009); Walter C. Ladwig III, Delhis Pacic ambition: naval power, look east, and Indias emerging inuence in the Asia-Pacic, Asian Security 5:2 (May 2009), 87113. 15 See Tan Tai Yong and See Chak Mun, The evolution of India-ASEAN relations, India Review 8:1 (JanuaryMarch 2009), 2042. 16 See John Lee, The Importance of India: Restoring Sight to Australias Blind Spot, CIS Foreign Policy Analysis No. 2 (Sydney: The Centre for Independent Studies, 5 November 2009). 17 Manmohan Singh, Prime Ministers Address, Speech presented at the Combined Commanders Conference, New Delhi (26 October 2004). 18 Arun Prakash, Shaping Indias Maritime Strategy, Speech presented at Indian National Defence College (November 2005). 19 Indian Navy modernization: 6 new submarines, 33 ships to be acquired, India Defence (1 July 2007). 20 See Integrated Headquarters (Navy), Indian Maritime Doctrine (New Delhi: Ministry of Defence, April 2004); Brajesh Mishra, Global Security: An Indian Perspective, Speech presented at the National Defence Institute, Lisbon (13 April 2000); C. Raja Mohan, Crossing the Rubicon, as above.

The notable lack of apprehension of Indias re-emergence is demonstrated by the remarkable speed with which it has been welcomed as a favoured and critical security partner and player in the region.

Foreign Policy Analysis 15

21 See William S. Cohen and Maurice R. Greenberg, Smart-Power in US-China Relations (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 2009). 22 See John Lee, An exceptional obsession, The American Interest (May/June 2010); Andrew C. Kutchins, et al., Chinese Soft Power and its Implications for the United States (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 2009). 23 Christian Wagner, From Hard to Soft Power? Working Paper No. 26 (Heidelberg: Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics, March 2005). 24 See Joseph S. Nye Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2004). 25 See Robert A. Dahl, The concept of power, Behavioural Sciences 2:3 (1957). 26 Joseph S. Nye Jr., The benets of soft power, Harvard Business School Working Knowledge (2 August 2004). 27 Shashi Tharoor, Indian strategic power: soft, The Hufngton Post (26 May 2009). 28 Lee Kuan Yew, Indias peaceful rise, Forbes (24 December 2007). 29 Joseph S. Nye Jr., The Paradox of American Power: Why the Worlds Only Superpower Cant Go It Alone (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 30 Raymond Aron, The Imperial Republic: The United States and the World 19451973 (London: Little Brown and Company, 1974), 304. 31 See Thomas J. Christensen, Shaping the choices of a rising China: recent lessons for the Obama administration, The Washington Quarterly 32:3 (2009). 32 See John Lee, The Fantasy of Taming Chinas Rise, CIS Foreign Policy Analysis No. 3 (Sydney: The Centre for Independent Studies, 6 May 2010). 33 Michael Mandelbaum, Democracys Good Name: The Rise and Risks of the Worlds Most Popular Form of Government (New York: Public Affairs, 2007). 34 Manjeet S. Pardesi, Understanding the rise of India, India Review 6:3 (2007), 211. 35 Japan-India partnership vital to East Asia, Yomiuri Shimbun (15 December 2006). 36 See Sanjaya Baru, India-United States relations under the Obama administration, ISAS Insights 38 (10 November 2008). 37 Edward Luce, In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India (London: Little Brown Book Group, 2006), 23. 38 Jacques E.C. Hymans, Indias soft power and vulnerability, India Review 8:3 (2009), 252. Note that Hymans makes this observation somewhat critically. 39 Amit Baruah, India has legitimate interests in Southeast Asia: George Yeo, The Hindu (24 January 2007). 40 See Indian navy engages US and Russia away from home, Press Release (Press Information, Government of India, 29 March 2007); P.S. Suryanaryana, Aircraft carrier on a friendly mission, The Hindu (3 August 2005); India, South Korea military exercise in July, India Defence (27 March 2006). 41 See Amanda Hodge, Stephen Smith aims for India war game, The Australian (15 October 2009). 42 See John Lee, An ASEAN Invasion, The National Interest (May/June 2007). 43 Karl F. Inderfurth, Breaking more naan with Delhi: the next stage in US-India relations, The National Interest (NovemberDecember 2007). 44 See Background brieng by administration ofcials on US-South Asia relations (US Department of State, 25 March 2005); US to help India become major world power, SiliconIndia (1 April 2005). 45 See Joseph S. Nye Jr., Springing Tiger, India Today (2 October 2006); Rajat Pandit, Navy makes a blue-water mark, The Times of India (7 January 2005). 46 For example, see BBCs special on Putting Indias election coverage into motion (26 April 2009); In the Indian election, 700m voters, 28 days, 250,000 police: worlds biggest democratic poll begins, The Guardian (16 April 2009). 47 Beijing lashes out at western media coverage of China, Agence France Presse (22 August 2003), as cited in Ingrid dHooge, The rise of Chinas public diplomacy, Clingendael Diplomacy Paper 12 (The Hague: Clingendael Diplomatic Studies Programme (CDSP), July 2007), 18. 48 State Council Information Ofce says western media coverage has taken a turn for the better, Xinhua News Agency (24 June 2006). 49 See Preeti Bhattacharji, Olympic Pressure on China (New York: Council on Foreign Relation, 2008).

16 Foreign Policy Analysis

50 Chinese democracy in action: making sure that Chinas supreme legislative body is toothless, The Economist (25 February 2010). 51 See T.V. Paul and Baldev Raj Nayar, India in the World Order: The Search for Major Power Status (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 52 Cited in Jacques E.C. Hymans, Indias Soft Power and Vulnerability, as above, 253. 53 Holland Gateway, Holland Nation Brands Index 2009 Report (New York: GfK Roper Media and Public Affairs 2009). China was ranked 22 in 2009 compared to 28 in 2008. 54 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, Ranking the Countries (2010). 55 Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2009, Regional Highlights: AsiaPacic (2009). 56 The United States and the Rise of China and India (Chicago: The Chicago Council, 2007). 57 Stephen Cohen, India: Emerging Power (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002), 26. 58 See Sumit Ganguly and Manjeet S. Pardesi, India rising: what is New Delhi to do? World Policy Journal 24:1 (Spring 2007), 10. 59 See Amit Kumar, Commentary on Indias soft power and diaspora, International Journal on World Peace (September 2008). 60 See Jagdish N. Bhagwati, Indias rise: the role of the diaspora, Council on Foreign Relations Asian Unbound blog, http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2010/02/05/indias-rise-the-role-ofthe-diaspora/#more-296 (5 January 2010). 61 This is not to say that the messages coming out of China are uncritically received by foreign audiences. 62 See Thomas Lum, Social Unrest in China (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2006). 63 This is an unofcial estimate given to me by a Chinese ofcial. 64 CIA Library, The World Factbook, www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ elds/2172.html. 65 See Yasheng Huang, Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 66 See Barun Mitra, Pull the land issue out from under the Maoists, The Wall Street Journal (20 April 2010). 67 See Rising India: challenges and constraints, CSS Analysis in Security Policy (May 2010). 68 See Matthieu Bussiere and Arnaud Mehl, Chinas and Indias Roles in Global Trade and Finance: Twin Titans for the New Millenium? (Paris: European Central Bank, 2008). 69 Note that closer economic relations can also create frictions, which is now occurring between China and the United States. However, the point remains that the economic interaction between China and countries such as the United States and Australia has been a net gain for Chinas reputation as a rising power. 70 Trade between China, ASEAN hits $202.6 bln, three years ahead of schedule, Xinhuanet (16 January 2008). 71 Ofce of the United States Trade Representative, China, Public and Media Affairs, http:// www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/china. 72 See India share in global trade to go up to 3%, The Hindu (27 August 2009). 73 See Matthieu Bussiere and Arnaud Mehl, Chinas and Indias Roles in Global Trade and Finance, as above. 74 Government of India, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (New Delhi), http://dipp.nic.in/fdi_statistics/india_fdi_index.htm. 75 Chinas 2008 FDI rises to US$92.4 billion, China Brieng (15 January 2009). 76 India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF), India and US, www.ibef.org/india/indiaus.aspx (May 2010). 77 See Joshua Kurlantzick, Charm Offensive: How Chinas Soft Power is Transforming the World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007). 78 See Sumit Ganguly and Manjeet S. Pardesi, Explaining sixty years of Indias foreign policy, India Review 8:1 (2009). 79 See Australias Diplomatic Decit (Sydney: Lowy Institute for International Policy, 2009), 19. 80 Interview: Chile to Embrace Confucius Institute, Xinhua (27 August 2008). 81 China to host second Confucius Institute Conference, Xinhua (12 June 2006). 82 Madhusree Chatterjee, India projecting its soft power globally: ICCR chief, The Indian (7 October 2009).

Foreign Policy Analysis 17

83 Saurabh Shukla, Soft power: Indias renewed thrust on cultural diplomacy is aimed at showcasing its dazzling diversity to maximise its strategic gains, India Today (30 October 2006). 84 Cited in Robin J. Walker, Awakening Tiger: Indias Quest for Expanded Inuence in the World (Monterey: Naval Postgraduate School, March 2008), 39. 85 See Indian Silicon Valley startups ride on innovation to beat slowdown, The Economic Times (10 January 2010). 86 See Australia commends India disaporas contribution, The Indian (23 June 2008). 87 For example, see Arthur Rubinoff, The state of political science and security studies of India in the United States: increased importance but declining academic attention, India Review 5:1 (2006). 88 As above. 89 With the exception of China, Pakistan and possibly other states such as Bangladesh.

18 Foreign Policy Analysis

Foreign Policy Analysis (ISSN 1837-1671) is a regular series published by the Centre for Independent Studies, evaluating developments in international affairs, foreign policy issues and related government policies. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Centres staff, advisors, directors, or officers. Foreign Policy Analysis papers (including back issues) can be purchased from CIS for $5.50 each (plus postage) or can be downloaded free from www.cis.org.au. The Centre for Independent Studies l PO Box 92, St Leonards, NSW 1590 Australia l p: +61 2 9438 4377 l f: +61 2 9439 7310 l [email protected]