Bharat Rakshak

Thanks to the writings of Rajiv Malhotra, we've become familiar with the idea of a "Western Universalism" that controls narrative and discourse throughout the non-Western world at an institutional level... and very often dominates thought-process at an individual level as well.

Today, the realization that Western Universalism enslaves and disempowers us, is just beginning to take shape for a small minority of people. The major battles for decolonization of the Indian mind and Dharmic civilization are still to come. The struggle will be long and hard, no doubt.

This is a speculative hot-air poll for those who want to think about the far future: 100-200 years from now. Assume that we do survive, and prevail, in the struggle against Western universalism in our homeland. Assume that we successfully reclaim India for Dharmic universalism, and establish it in a sustainable manner as our cultural, normative, and institutional centre-of-gravity.

What next? Do we keep this Dharmic worldview to ourselves, live and let others live, as our ancestors did? Or is it desirable for the greater good of humanity... or even necessary for our own continuing survival... to extend Dharmic universalism to the other peoples and nations of the world?

If the latter, then where would the seeds of our mindset find the most fertile ground? It is never too early to sow those seeds, after all... we don't have to wait till the battle is completely fought and won on our own soil, before we begin the process of influencing other peoples in other nations. Indeed, having influence abroad might provide advantages in the struggle at home. Which, then, are the civilizations and cultures most amenable to influence by India's Dharmic universalism... just as India has for so long been (and continues to be) under the yoke of Western universalism?

Voted for option 1.

IMHO, when Bharat realizes, accepts, adopts and asserts it's Dharmic universalism, that will set the ball rolling. Bharat will be invited to set things straight first in Ummah, china and west in that order.

The order of invitation is proportional to the suffering in the society.

The underlying assumption seems to be a global, growing, voluntary desire for Dharma, religion, or simply a relationship with The Creator.

Evidence suggests a trend to the contrary, i.e. a global, growing, voluntary desire for sensory gratification. We want:

• Pretty people and possessions to behold [and discard]
• Tasty things to [over]eat
• Catchy music, gossip, and outrageous points of view to hear [and forget]
• Bigger and more comfortable homes to live in [and brag about]

Unless there is a major social upheaval, economic depression, global war, climate disruption, epidemic, famine, or something else which leaves people without distractions and leaves them with nothing but their thoughts and the time to contemplate, I don't see how a desire for spiritual growth is going to spread.

If any of those major upheavals do take place, India's existence and its strength should it exist would determine if spreading Dharmic Universalism is a priority or its back to basics like roti, kapda aur makaan.

I suspect China will be most receptive, and ultimately it will be only India and China. But I believe Africa need to be led into this path. Major religions will have to take a back seat for Dharmic universalism to prevail.

I didn't vote because I don't think it will be a "1 out of 3" scenario. Any reason why it was framed like that?

Why isn't Africa in the list?

I think significant portions of Ummah, West, China and Africa will take advantage of the Dharmic model of universalism.

In the Ummah, many such people will be underground followers. There will also be strong suppression or tendency to suborn or "digest". In the West where both Christianism and liberalism are strong, there will be a combination of "digesting" and true adoption and adaptation with fidelity to the principles. In China, there are many interesting syncretic possibilities for adoption and adaptation, because their culture is not based on a confessional religious affiliation. In Africa, there is huge potential for shamanic and other subcultures to be dovetailed with Indic schools.

I chose 3rd option. I think the general population of the West may be ready for Dharmic inculcation. Of course, it would need an appropriate vehicle for that, e.g. Dharmic Jesus, True Yoga, Meditation, Buddhism, etc.!

I think Christianism would jump to East Asia now. Korea is already majority Christian. China would follow.

Ummah is Ummah and will never change!

shiv wrote:I suspect China will be most receptive, and ultimately it will be only India and China. But I believe Africa need to be led into this path. Major religions will have to take a back seat for Dharmic universalism to prevail.

In the west, organized religion is becoming less popular day by day. One of the major reasons why Vatican is trying to push Christianity in Asia in a big way.

please add an option of PRC and West as more receptive.

You don't have all the above as an option. So will not vote. The point is is you cant be tolerant of an intolerant ideology. The ideologies mentioned above are all intolerant of others.

Pratyush ji,

no ideologies were mentioned; just geographical regions.

Saar Ji,

The geographical regions mentioned are currently inhabited by intolerant ideologies. That was the thrust of my post.

RD, have you read Chinmay Gharekhan's article on soft power and its limitations? Its in the Indian interests thread.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1294444

The current problem is the world doesn't have a role-model, assuming Dharmic universalism is that, to compare with or follow if wanted. Every existing model has shown its tentacles and repeats the same problems that it claims to be solution of.

Let
D – Is a root system
B – Is materialistic derivative of D
A – Inverse derivative of D
C – Political derivative of A
K – Religious derivative of C
J – Socio-Political derivative of A
S – Political derivative of K
E – Economic derivative of S
L – Social derivative of E

I is defined as a integrative of S-E-L and is being sold as “optimization of D”

Note: Each system is a multi-dimensional non-linear equation with some of the dimensions being Individual, spiritual, environmental, Social, economic, psychological and so on...

Voted for 1.

I do not believe in sharing my assets for phokat esp. if I am in competition at all places.

Pratyush wrote:You don't have all the above as an option. So will not vote. The point is is you cant be tolerant of an intolerant ideology. The ideologies mentioned above are all intolerant of others.

There is another way to look at that. The others are not universal enough. We are the only one!

^ good point.

The next question is
Should we allow a non-universal/narrow thought process to get included in dharmic alliance and be given equal rights, and if so, how and on what conditions?

Opted for 3.

Since I haven't read Rajiv Malhotra's definition specifically I looked at insufficient links from wiki.
Universalism refers to any concept or doctrine that applies to all persons and/or all things for all times and in all situations, and may mean different things depending on the field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universali ... biguation)

I tried to confirm what I think it to be and whether it is in sync.

My 2 cents.
I guess the basic idea of universalism would be when the idea itself doesn't need to be explained anymore and becomes a product and everyone adopts it.

To stick to simple examples, I would have thought for example jeans as an example of Universalism. Everybody wears it (and it goes with almost anything i.e. once you drop the monkey suit and the "kanth langot") and it is Western. OTOH khakis would be an example of Easterm Universalism and everyone wears it too without giving it much thought. It fits, it is comfortable and is relaxing. There is space for both.

This needs to happen in the interests of this planet, call it a smaller human imprint or for a sustainable planet. The work that needs to be done on our times and by our generation cannot be neglected, in our little ways and maybe a going a little further than we are expected to do.

IMO the natural flow of things would be for the "Practitioners" of Dharmic Universalism to mature in sufficient numbers in India itself first (option 1) and then spread through the route listed (option 3) in 100-200 years.

How does a country based on live and let live and dharmic universalism respond to religious war?

Shiv ji we already are responding and doing it well.

Wether our opponents are bound by religious affiliations or by anthing else, the fact remains they are just as fractitous as our system is. In fact IMHO they actually are even more so.

Indics were always rather uncrystallised by way of religious affiliations. To assume that we will get better at that benchmark, when the opponents have already had a headstart may not be a bankable assumption. But this should not be taken to believe that Indic strength is not good enough to handle the Malechas.

Most Indics as they become aware of the impact of series of Islamist Baadshahs, 47, 71, 89, RJB, conclude that they have been pushed around for long and the same is still continuing.

To my mind the situation is signficantly different.

The first time Indics got attacked in this manner was the time when Indics had not discovered political unity and to compound the matters the opponent brought to the fight the biggest weapon possible 'God'. That lasted them a few centuries till they got so weak that the Firangis took over from them. The Firangis lost their virility to their own kind the Nazis. So basically as time passed by the opponents capability to challenge us and our lives, on our turf decreased subtantially. Sure, this has forced the opponent to find new tactics. Things like conversions, tie-ups with guns for hire like Marxists/Budhijeebis/Naxals. While it is true that the challenge itself has mutated and the while also the concern regarding our own preparedness is valid, we still should not count ourselves as weak in this regard. In next 30 years almost all the Indics will be reasonably well educated and a majority will be significantly well employed. As these generations come into their own they will bring their own ideas to the table. And looking at the past I feel confident that the newer generations are going to be much more assertive about their interests. During the 70s no Kangresi, no Marxist, no Islamist, no EJ could have believed the possiblity of a backlash of the kind that grew since the early 90s. Future is only going to be more of the same kind.

The solution to my mind is stronger economy, stronger army, big investments in intelligence ops., bigger investments in educating our people about the Malechas and better management of our own assets in which I include our essentially Dharmic constitution.

In this regard I greatly appreciate what Rajiv Malhotra ji is saying regarding the 'Western Universalism'. In fact he is rather clear that it is a myth sought to be imposed (something like PIE). That is why I believe 'Western Universalism' should not be replaced by the 'Dharmic Universalism'. This I oppose on two counts:

(1) Universalism of whatever kind has to be based on a minimum common understanding. We have already seen the fallacy of 'Western Universalism' in last few centuries. It is just too easy to have it degenerate into Western Imperialism. It all started out with some high democratic ideals. Then came the idea that somebody else cannot really understand these high ideals and should be taught to. The problem was in the inability of the west in understanding themselves better and an even childish ability to understand the world outside. I was forced under Western Imperialism for about 2 centuries but the westerners have to live with it now forever. The choice they sought to make for the 'Lesser civilizations' was actually the one they themselves could not really understand before taking them on. They could never really understand how to take their ideas to the wider world. Dharmic Universalism may actually now become like an additional condiment in a dish gone rancid. By taking Dharmic universalism to the people trained solely in western methodology you will be handing over a sword to a monkey. The monkey will become dangerous to both himself and to other too. With the blame being thrown on to us now. Admittedly there will always be a few inquisitive and brave individuals who will want to learn new things. They should not be stopped from their quest, whether they be Indians or Westerners. But then Dharmic Universalism is by the Indics, for the Indics and of the Indics. We should be able to control it not the westerners. Fate took Rig Vedas to the westeners and look what they did. Uncontrolled desimination of Dharmic Universalism onto the west will only produce a Chimera. I only see westerners justifying their wayward libertine lifestyle under the garb of Tantraism and promoting that even amongst our people. Only a marginal few amongst western people will have the patience to promote Balance and moderation. These few deserving guys will find Dharma out of their own efforts.

(2) Now Rajiv Malhotra ji is also talking of inculcating a practice of 'Purvapaksha' in our people (to which I agree). Purvapaksha by its very nature will enhance differences and bring those differences to a more managable level by developing a better understanding of those differences. By basically democratising the whole process of people understanding each other while affording themselves and others a chance to keep developing. It is the diversity that we should be appreciating and that we should take to the world outside by taking to them what would be their Purvapaksha on us. This way everybody will benefit. Indics will learn a lot about the myth of the monolithic west which actually does not and cannot exist. At the same time the west will learn how not to work on the presumption of being the observers to a subject civilization that is not their own. Also at the same time both people will get ownership of their own history and reality. This will allow a genuine change of understanding levels. With Purvapaksha techniques if a westerner want to change himself completely into a Dharmic individual he will be an asset to two civilization.

JMT though
also please excuse and tolerate the english

Universalism means that all the people of the world think (or should think) in categories as constructed by some dominant culture and thus all the world should accept a single narrative of world's cultural history.

shiv wrote:How does a country based on live and let live and dharmic universalism respond to religious war?

Like India has.

There is much strength in simple routine in life. Getting up in the morning working to going to bed at night. Much strength in doing what you have always done and in following your family and your father. Invaders do not elicit much of a political response. One is much to wealthy and busy to say anything.

One does not need a special threat and threat perception to respond. Many a times, this response comes from insecurity (in the case of our western neighbours) and from syphillis and gonorrhea (in the case of the profit)

shiv wrote:How does a country based on live and let live and dharmic universalism respond to religious war?

Dharmic country does not need to respond. The warmonger will think twice what will be the response of dharmic people if they do that mistake. Given that dharmic people follow their kshatriya dharma properly and keep their war machinery well-oiled and warriors in good manobal and well-fed

Practicing Live and Let live policy and dharmic universalism creates a kind of kavach provided everyone in the darmic state follows their dharma - a kind of shield, atma-pratyay (something more powerful than self-esteem) that enemies will think 1000 times before doing any mischief.

ramana wrote:RD, have you read Chinmay Gharekhan's article on soft power and its limitations? Its in the Indian interests thread.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1294444

Ramana,

I've read it, and it's a good article. However it's not really germane to this thread.

What Mr. Gharekhan seems to be arguing is that India cannot afford to be complacent based on its present cultural influence and "soft power"... and that India must develop not only the means to exercise hard power but the political will to do so. I agree with him 100% on that. "Soft power" can never be a substitute for "hard power," and we have to work tirelessly to develop our hard power.

However that's not the context of my question in this poll. Mr. Gharekhan's premise is that an either/or choice exists between developing and exercising soft vs. hard power... and we should not sacrifice hard power in any event. That is true in the immediate term, which is the context of his article. However, we cannot afford to dismiss the importance of soft power in and of itself, especially in the long term (100-200 years) which is the context of this poll.

In the long term we must cultivate both soft and hard power. Consider the "social engineering" projects we talk about, that have been instituted by the US in our country... from media to NGOs to academia. They are a mechanism of potent influence over Indian society and polity, continuously exercised by the US without ever firing a shot.

In fact it can be argued that US hard power has had relatively little influence over India... the Enterprise CBG, the arming of Pakistan, the wink-and-nod to Chinese proliferation, all these eventually produced more problems for the US than they solved. These measures may have contained and constrained India's options to one extent or the other, but they had no capacity to positively compel India in any direction. In the long term, looking at US-Pakistan relations, America's exercise of hard power in our region has hardly been advantageous to the US. It has only compounded a massive trust deficit between Washington and a rising India, and also created the nuclear-blackmailing beggar state of Pakistan which is America's biggest headache today.

In contrast, the established and ongoing social-engineering projects give the US enormous leverage over India at considerably less expense and less risk of adverse consequences. We dismiss "soft power" at our own peril.

The fact is that India's "soft power" as it stands today is simply a function of international commercial exploitation of our culture, entirely ad-hoc, with no specific strategy driving its exertion. Bollywood is popular, Kathiawari fabrics are popular, chicken tikka masala is popular... so those things are cited as examples of "soft power". They are nothing of the sort.

You cannot even begin to compare India's "soft power" with the highly organized, well-funded agendas driving Western (i.e. Judeo-Christian) and Islamic institutions and mechanisms for propagation of their soft power. Western universalism completely dominates the Indian elite and educated middle classes; it is directly and solely responsible for the creation of a DIE class which other upwardly mobile Indians aspire to join. Enough has been said about the influence of Islamic universalism, propagated by Saudi-funded preachers and madrassas on the other hand.

My major thought on this is: when it comes to "social engineering", we in India have indigenously developed our unique schema for social/political/economic apparatus, and a working model of society based on such schema, which is arguably far more stable, beneficial and enduring than corresponding models proffered by ANY other cultural universalism. Our way is demonstrably better. Yet we continue to be influenced by the "social engineering" of others and subscribe to their demonstrably inferior models.

The question is: in order to reclaim our own society for our own cultural model... can we AFFORD an attitude of "live and let live?" Can a deer afford to say "live and let live" to a wolf? Or does the process of revival demand a degree of assertiveness from us, whose momentum will inevitably carry our model of dharmic universalism beyond our borders and into other societies and cultures?

Can we adequately revive dharmic universalism, and assert it sustainably within our borders, without having developed the ability to project it far beyond our borders? Just as, for example... the Indian Armed forces do 99% of their job with small arms but Agni and Arihant are still needed?

****************************************


Carl ji, Shyamd ji, Pratyush ji and others: this is an online poll, and necessarily has limitations in terms of the available options not meeting everyone's particular preferences with all subtle specifications intact. That's why the question is, select the choice you *most* agree with... not the choice you *absolutely* agree with. It is only a starting point for exploring and discussing an idea, and the choices provided are not expected to represent the entirety of anybody's position. I therefore request readers to vote for the choice that seems relatively most probable to them, and then to register/elaborate their difference of opinion with that choice in a post.

If one strongly disagrees with all the options presented with none seeming significantly more likely than any of the others, then of course, it's better not to vote. But please offer your opinions for discussion anyway.

Also, the reason I've not included Africa, Latin America, SE Asia, Orthodox Eurasia etc. is that the poll would have become impossibly complex and the results would have been too fractured to reveal anything much. Of course, assuming that we want to expound dharmic universalism rather than keeping it to ourselves, we will attempt to do so in all territories of the world, to whatever extent practicable. We will meet with varying degrees of success in all these regions, but at the end of the day, Christianity didn't become an all-consuming monster until it grasped the Roman Empire... so accordingly, the poll focuses on the dominant and most influential global cultures of the present day.

The dominant cultures of the world today are the Judeo Christian and Islamic, with Judeo-Christian being most influentially represented by Western Europe and North America (led by the USA) and Islamic by West Asia- North Africa and to some extent SE Asia. The emerging contender to challenge these two universalisms is China. That's why I have restricted the poll choices to these three for the moment. The discussion itself, of course, can go beyond them to any part of the world.

long term soft power only comes after short term hard power projections. without a storm, there is no meaning to calm, in a relative sense. that is how the world would view.

SaiK wrote:long term soft power only comes after short term hard power projections. without a storm, there is no meaning to calm, in a relative sense. that is how the world would view.

No argument. Hard power is to be cultivated. Soft power is not a substitute for hard power. But hard power is also not a substitute for soft power. Both are important and both must be developed independently.

We have many threads discussing the ways and means of cultivating hard power. This thread is dedicated to ways and means of developing soft power... and the strategies of its implementation.

the quickest way to reach soft power is by removing all roadblocks from genuine democracy for aam admi with near zero corruption.

Rudradev ji,

OK, I voted for option #3 - West is potentially the most likely to accept dharmic universalism.

China and Ummah have raised a genration of people who are mis-educated in their schools to be deeply suspicious and jingoistic, with a sense of victimhood and a will to rise and dominate with a vengeance without giving up what they see as their "core" identity issue. Its almost the opposite in the West. As the dominant political economy of this age, they may have fewer ego issues in adopting and embracing an Eastern idea. Plus, they already have many necessary memes in terms of viewing the purushaarthas. Plus, the geopolitical calculus is bound to bring the US and India closer in the longer-term - after the current Brit-inspired "thinkers" are discredited.

Basically, the US is like Hanuman - at first an 800lb gorilla causing a lot of pain in the devas' and rishis' musharrafs, but then later is shown his true purpose after first being put under a mild curse to contain him.

I am more concerned at dharmic local-ism than universalism. if we have a strong local establishments, then permeating universally should not be a problem at all.

I've voted for option 2.

The reason is I think Chinese have never been very enthusiastic about their homegrown religions like 'Taoism' much. So whatever religion the citizens were following before Mao started the genocide (of humans as well as the culture & religion) were easily wiped out. The Taoism or Buddhism couldn't resurrect like christianity in Russia did at the fall of Soviet Union.

There was no christianity like religion in china well rooted in the institutions, while christianity is well rooted in Europe, South America, US, Canada etc. So even if Yoga, Tantra, Certain Guru with Hindu way of life converts lots of people's view to reincarnation, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. The christianity with its roots in institutions will still find ways to digest these philosophies and keep their countries christian. So softpower projection in west will only help safeguard Bharatvarsh from christianisation. In case western govts + industrialists nexus sees their own people converting they'll be forced to take tough actions against Hindu Gurus like they did against Osho. Although they were able to paint him as sexguru and all that. But once hundreds of Gurus go to West and start converting, christian countries are going to take tough actions. They're not going to let this all happen and watch silently.

Once the west starts taking action against Hindu Gurus and it starts getting media coverage. Lines will be drawn, Indics will wake up to the freedom EJism has been given in our own land, while we are being denied that sort of freedom in christian countries.

In China there is no biggest cash rich, real estate owning vatican which will resist spread of dharma. In fact it is right now completely walkover, no matter who goes there christians, islamists, Buddhists or Hindus you can convert as many as possible before christians 'harvest too many souls' and stop others.

shiv wrote:How does a country based on live and let live and dharmic universalism respond to religious war?

Shv ji
1. Call it correctly as being under attack of a religious war.
2. Fight without wearing the blinkers of bigotry and hate of your own.

X-posting

The Future of Indian Power: Hard vs. Soft

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, India’s 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.

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 Pakistan’s 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 India’s 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 India’s 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 India’s 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.

Having examined the status of India’s soft power in the past and present, we can now begin to draw conclusions about the future of Indian power. India’s entertainment industry will continue to define India for foreigners, but as described previously, this will not be an effective means of power projection. Instead, India’s 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.

Full article: The Future of Indian Power: Hard vs. Soft

For discussion: (PDF)
The False Promise of India's Soft Power
http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/defa ... tpower.pdf