Intriguing results can be gauged from public opinion polls in India’s closest neighbourhood. Here, India has been seen rather positively in most neighbours, except Pakistan. Surveys conducted a few years ago show a positive attitude towards India in Afghanistan – 59 per cent positive, 1 per cent per cent negative (BBC, 2006), Sri Lanka – 49 per cent positive, 4 per cent negative (BBC 2006), Bangladesh – 81 per cent positive, 16 per cent negative (Gallup/SADP 2011) and Nepal – 84 per cent positive (Gallup/SADP 2012).
Of note is the trajectory of results seen across a wider period. The BBC has tracked perceptions of India in its global survey since 2006. Analysis of the longer trend reveals, surprisingly, that India’s favourability ratings have slightly declined over the last several years, despite extra efforts put on soft power projection (see Graph 5.1). The net rating of positive assessments among all countries surveyed in 2006 stood at +10 per cent and has decreased to -2 per cent, in 2013, to recover to +2 per cent points, in 2014. Whereas, in 2006, on average, 35 per cent gave India positive rating and 25 per cent gave it a negative one (41 per cent did not give any answer), in 2014, on average, 38 per cent viewed India positively and 36 per cent viewed it negatively. Whereas, in 2006, India was seen positively by a majority of citizens in 22 out of 33 surveyed countries and negatively in only six of them, eight years later, the picture is more divided, with 10 out of 23 surveyed countries leaning positive, 10 negative, and three divided (BBC, 2006, 2014).
The highest drop was recorded in 2009 (by 7 net per cent points down) and in 2013 (by 15 net per cent points down). It appears that, in the first case, the downward trend could have been caused by the negative fallout of the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which signalled India to be an insecure, unstable and conflict-prone country with ineffective police and special forces. Significant deterioration of the perception of India in 2013 was more complex. Apparently, it coincided with the decline of the Indian economy, resulting in doubt concerning its further development. A series of scandals led to the growing international spotlight of corruption in India and the ineffective bureaucracy, as these received special attention from the anti-corruption campaign of Anna Hazare. In addition, a brutal gang rape of an Indian student, in Delhi, on 16 December 2012, topped headlines in the global media and highlighted problems and dangers facing women, a sense of insecurity, the ineffectiveness of police, and social and gender tensions in Indian society. This story had a hugely negative impact on the image of India, especially in liberal Western societies, far more sensitive to the issues of gender equality and those that pay special attention to the safety and position of women. This series of unfortunate events could explain the deterioration of India’s image in European countries like Germany, France or Spain. The negative impact of this crime was also visible in the initial decrease in tourist arrivals, especially women tourists. This assessment is shared by Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, which conducted the survey for BBC, who commented, in 2013: “While China and India’s prestige was enhanced by defying the gravity of the economic downturn, they seem to be falling back to earth with slowing growth rates and a perception of widespread corruption. The scandals surrounding the treatment of women in India may also have had an impact on this year’s findings” (BBC, 2013).
Figure 5.2. Views of India’s influence 2006-2014
Source: BBC 2006-2014
Perceived inequality and marginalization of various fringe groups is a cause of concern for various foreigners; India’s diversity and varied cultural experience constitutes its biggest asset. According to a BBC poll in 2012, which included questions about five factors that influence people’s attitudes towards certain countries to the biggest extent, those who perceived India’s role positively attributed this to India’s traditions and culture (48 per cent), followed by 19 per cent who mentioned its economy, products and services. On the other hand, major factors responsible for negative opinions were: the way India treats its people (29 per cent), followed by Indian traditions and culture (25 per cent) (BBC, 2012). All these surveys show that, despite new promotional campaigns and investments in its soft power, India still has a serious image problem.
The global survey results and international rankings measuring the perception of India abroad can be quite surprising. Before drawing conclusions, it is important to make a caveat: most of the surveys and rankings are prepared from a Western, liberal perspective, and certain indicators can be biased against developing countries. It may be argued, for instance, that public opinion polls about India’s favorability would be more positive if there were more developing countries included. Actually, existing polls confirm this assumption, as they show that India has a better image in African and Asian countries than in Europe. Nevertheless, India’s low position, in comparison to other countries, is still worrisome. As admitted by MEA Joint Secretary Navdeep Suri, in 2011: “Although the efficacy of nation branding exercises can evoke valid skepticism, it is also a fact that India tends to fare rather poorly in terms of several leading global indices. Brand India, moreover, is seen to have taken a serious knock out on account of the spate of negative stories in the run-up to the Commonwealth Games in October and we are looking at several initiatives which, in the short term, can help in restoring India’s image” (Suri, 2011: 300).
Tourism, Education, Migration and Capital: India as Source or Destination Country
The number of individuals who want to visit India for tourism, education, or work is clearly another method to assess its attractiveness. Regarding tourism, data shows India has become a far more popular tourist destination in recent years. The number of foreign tourist arrivals has more than doubled between 1997 and 2012, from 2.37 million to 6.58 million. As shown in Figure 5.2 below, this upsurge in the number of foreign visitors coincided with the start of the flagship tourism promotion campaign, “Incredible India”, initiated by the Ministry of Tourism in 2002, which may indicate its effectiveness. Moreover, India’s position improved not only in absolute numbers but also in the share of international tourists arrivals in the world, from 0.40 per cent, in 1997, to 0.64 per cent, in 2012 (Ministry of Tourism, 2013). In 2012, most foreign tourists to India came from Western Europe (28.17 per cent), North America (19.70 per cent), and South Asia (17.81 per cent), and the top three sources of tourists were the US (1.04 million), the UK (788,000), and Bangladesh (487,000).
The growing popularity of India as tourist destination means concrete economic benefits for the country. Foreign exchange earnings from tourism have grown from US$ 2.8 billion, in 1997, to US$ 17.87 billion, in 2012 (ibid). This constituted approximately 20 per cent of India’s current account deficit that year, according to official figures. This is especially important for India, as the tourism industry overall accounts for 6 per cent of India’s gross domestic product, and it is responsible for about 10 per cent of organised employment in the country (Bargi and Timmons 2013).
Figure 5.3. Foreign Tourist Arrivals in India 1997-2012 (in millions)
Source: Ministry of Tourism (2013b)
Explaining this success, one can recall such increases were possible due to a general upward trend in international tourist flows in the last decade and the improved tourist infrastructure in India, but India’s rising popularity and soft power influence cannot simply be disregarded. The Incredible India is often seen, indeed, as the first ever “branding campaign” of India and can be viewed as one of the most successful initiatives of this kind in the world (Nandan, 2014; Kant, 2008).
There is even more evidence of a clear correlation between tourist flows to India and the image of the country abroad. The only years when there was a decrease in foreign tourist visits to India were—1998, the year of India’s nuclear tests and imposition of international sanctions; 2001 and 2002, after the terrorists’ attacks on 13 December 2001 and military standoff with Pakistan lasting throughout 2002; and in 2009, after the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Although there were some initial media reports pointing at a 25 per cent dr
op in foreign tourist arrivals in the first three months of 2013, resulting from growing concern about women’s safety in India following the fatal Delhi gang rape in December 2012 (Rahman 2013; Bargi and Timmons, 2013), this is not confirmed in official statistics. According to government estimates, foreign tourists arrivals in 2013 were 6.848 million, a growth of 4.1 per cent, as compared to FTAs of 6.578 million in 2012 (Ministry of Tourism, 2014).
The positive trend in tourism arrivals to India also indicates India’s growing soft power, which plays an important role in attracting more foreigners. Still, there is a lot that needs to be improved. The current size of the group of foreign tourists in India – a huge country with a rich culture and numerous tourist attractions of prime value – is not just not satisfactory. In 2012, India was ranked at the distant 41st position in World Tourist arrivals, far behind top contenders France (ranked 1st in 2012 with 83 million tourists), the US (67 million tourists), and China (57 million tourists), but also Malaysia (25 million), Thailand (22.4 million), and Vietnam (6.8 million). This suggests a largely untapped tourist potential of India. Action should be taken to create a more attractive image of India abroad and improve the quality offered at home.
As underwhelming as the performance of the tourism industry may be, India’s performance in the international education market is far more troublesome. India is still not perceived as an attractive destination for international students, and it is, rather, a source of student mobility. More Indians prefer to study abroad than foreigners prefer in to come to India for studies. In 2010, there were only 12,374 international students studying in India, compared to over 170,000 Indians studying abroad (UNESCO, 2010). Most foreign students in India come from South and West Asia (3,767), the Arab States (3,453), or Sub-Saharan Africa (1,898). However, it is important to note that there has been a strong rising trend in international students coming to India in recent years. According to UNESCO data, the number of foreign students in India rose to 27,000, in 2012, and to over 31,000, in 2013 (UNESCO website, 2014). India was ranked as the 15th most popular higher education destination in the world, behind the US, Australia, and the UK, but also far behind China and South Korea.
Apart from several world-level Indian Institutes of Technologies and top private institutions, Indian universities remain poorly funded, produce little research, and seem unattractive to international students (Ernst and Young, 2012). The weak position of Indian higher education is evident in its international rankings. On the 2014 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) (so-called “Shanghai List”) India had only one university – the Indian Institute of Science – ranked globally (between 301–400). That same year, China had 32 universities, the US – 146, Germany – 39, the UK – 38, Brazil – 6, Russia – 2 and Poland – 2. Moreover, there were only two universities (both in distant places) among the top 200 World Universities in Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences for 2014 – these were the Indian Institute of Science, ranked between 101–150, and the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, ranked between 151–200. Only one university – the same Indian Institute of Science – was ranked in the 151–200 range in the 2014 Academic Ranking of World Universities in Natural Sciences and Mathematics. Not a single academic institution from India was placed among the top 200 World Universities in categories such as Life and Agriculture Sciences, Clinical Medicine and Pharmacy, or Social Science.
Similarly, India is not seen as an attractive migration destination, except for neighbouring countries in South Asia. In general, more Indians emigrate from the country than foreigners settling in India. According to the World Bank’s estimates, in 2010, the stock of emigration from India was 11.36 million, while the stock of immigration was 5.43 million. Most immigrants in India come from Bangladesh (63 per cent), Pakistan (21 per cent), Nepal (11 per cent), or Sri Lanka (3 per cent), and other countries constitute around 3 per cent of immigrants. Hence, migration flows out of the country reveal another flaw in India’s power of attraction. Until it improves the standard of living, it will continue to be a country from where people migrate in search of better life.
International capital flow is yet another tangible measure that shows a country’s attractiveness, in this case: the economic dimension. India has become an increasingly popular investment destination only in the last decade. The amount of foreign direct investments (FDI) inflow to India, which stagnated for over a decade around US$ 5 billion, skyrocketed in 2006 to over US$ 20 billion from little more than US$ 7 billion a year earlier. It picked up to US$ 43.4 billion, in 2008, but then decreased to US$ 25.3 billion, in 2012, following the international economic crisis and mounting problems at home. Despite the overall remarkable progress, India has been a less popular destination for foreign direct investments than other emerging economies and attracted the least FDIs among all BRIC countries. In comparison, in 2012, FDI inflows to China were 10 times higher (US$ 252 billion), while Brazil attracted US$ 65.3 billion, and Russia US$ 31.3 billion (OECD, 2013). FDI stock in India, by the end of 2011, was US$ 206.2 billion, whereas the number in China was US$ 1804.2 billion, US$ 669.7 billion in Brazil and US$ 457.5 billion in Russia. Moreover, when one includes net flow of FDI, it turns out that there was more money leaving India than coming in to the country over the last two decades.
Figure 5.4. Foreign Direct Investments to India 1990-2013 (BoP, current US$)
The recent “Make in India” campaign, launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to make India a global manufacturing hub, offers a chance to reverse negative trends and attract more foreign capital. This will, however, require further economic reforms that will help transform the country into more a favourable place for doing business. As Indian government data for early 2015 shows, there is already a positive change in capital flow. According to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, the total FDI inflow to India between April 2014 and January 2015 was US$ 25.5 billion, 36 per cent more than in the corresponding period in the previous year (US$ 18.7 billion). Cumulative FDI in India from April 2000 to January 2015 stood at US$ 361 billion, including US$ 243 billion equity inflows (DPPI, 2015). Already, for the last couple of years, India has been regarded as one of the most attractive FDI destinations by UNCTAD. Now, the second round of economy liberalisation may further boost its global economic appeal.
Advancing Foreign Policy Goals
Probably the most fundamental question in assessing the effectiveness of India’s soft power is how this approach has helped in realising its foreign policy goals. The answer is difficult, not only due to the imminent constraints of this concept but also because there is no one official foreign policy strategy of India that can be used as a reference point for analysis. Yet, one can assume that, the two core aims for India in external relations is, to secure an international environment conducive to fast economic growth—and to advance its global position as a major power. To attain these goals, India needs security from external threats, a stable neighbourhood, and a favourable international economic and political system that would accommodate India’s concerns and aspirations. The country would like to play a bigger role in global institutions, from UNSC to IMF, and move from being a “rule-taker” to “rule-setter”. From climate change negotiations to trade talks, and from antiterrorism cooperation to reform of the United Nations, India’s effectiveness will depend on its perceived credibility and attractiveness. The country’s image is also fundamental in attracting foreign investments, technologies or tourists that can fuel economic development.
Shashi Tharoor (2012: 277) claims, “India’s potential leadership role in the world lies in its soft power.” Yet it is hard to point out the moments when India’s soft power played a decisive role in attaining its foreign policy interests. As shown above, despite the more active use of soft power tools in last decade, there has been no major shift in international perceptions of India. Therefore, some scholars tend to criticise the effectiveness of this approach (Muhkerjee, 2014; Hall, 2012). However, it is argued here that the n
ew strategy is likely to bring major benefits in the long term; indeed, it is already showing positive outcomes. Some of India’s success in the last several years can be attributed, if not completely, then at least partly, to its soft power.
First, India has managed to rebuild its positive image in South Asia, even though some contentious issues in relations with many neighbours remain. In refraining from the use of force and interfering in internal affairs as well as promoting the idea of deep interdependence, India has mitigated its perception as a regional hegemon and is now a more acceptable leader. This was caused not only by a change of diplomatic style but also by a more active soft power projection through expansion of cultural centres, development assistance and people-to-people links (Kugiel, 2014b). One convincing example of the effectiveness of these efforts is the policy towards Afghanistan (see below). The invitation of all leaders from SAARC to the inauguration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in May 2014, was a wise public diplomacy move that established India’s role as a stabilising force. Modi’s subsequent visits to Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka further promoted India’s image as an attractive partner. Even if relations with Pakistan remain a negative exception, a new stage for SAARC may be at hand.
Second, India has managed to regain legitimacy it had lost somehow after the nuclear tests in 1998. Thanks to its follow-up policy and new initiatives of recent years, India is now seen as a peaceful, non-revisionist state and responsible nuclear power. One of the most striking examples is the nuclear deal with the US, signed in 2008, which would not have been possible without the important role of the Indian diaspora in the US (Kamdar, 2007b; Kirk 2008) and public diplomacy efforts of the world’s largest democracy. This was a remarkable shift in US policy, whose strategy towards India in the 1990s was based essentially on one single mantra: to “cap, roll back, and eventually eliminate” India’s nuclear weapons. Ultimately, the United States has become the first to recognize, de facto, India’s nuclear power status. Although there were more strategic and economic factors behind this decision than are apparent on the surface, one wonders whether this would have been possible had India not been soft power. The counter example of neighbouring Pakistan, which is not known for its soft power, is an informative case. Now India, unlike Pakistan, has the chance for another successful campaign for membership in nuclear non-proliferation regimes, like the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Moreover, despite significant military buildup, India, unlike China, is not seen with suspicion as a threat to stability in Asia. This allows it, for instance, a more active security presence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
India’s Soft Power Page 16
