Source: World Wide Web
[Global Web Report] The original title of the June 23 article in "India Express": "Why does China always beat India in soft power?" The author is Kanti Bajpai, a well-known expert on China-India relations in India, He is currently Professor of Asian Studies at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. The article reads as follows:
China is known to outperform India in terms of hard power - economic power plus military power. But not many people know that China's soft power also has advantages. Soft power is persuading others to do what you want. Soft power theorists believe that the ability to persuade depends on the power of attraction. We Indians consider ourselves more influential than China, but the data shows otherwise. According to Joseph Nye, the political scientist who coined the term soft power for us at
, soft power includes foreign policy, culture and political influence. The influence of foreign policy stems from the legitimacy and morality of dealing with other countries. The influence of culture is based on the respect other countries have for their own (national) culture. Political influence refers to the extent to which other parties are inspired by one party's political values. Soft power is difficult to measure. Fortunately, Australia's Lowy Institute for International Policy has developed indicators that roughly measure (a country's) foreign policy, cultural and political influence.
In terms of diplomatic influence, overall, out of 25 Asian powers including the US (given the huge US diplomatic, military and economic presence in Asia), India ranks sixth, while China ranks first. The Lowy Institute further distinguishes between diplomatic networks, multilateral forces, and recognized foreign policy leadership, ambition, and effectiveness. In terms of diplomatic network, India has almost as many regional embassies as China, but it lags far behind China in the number of embassies globally (China has 176 compared to India's 126). And in terms of multilateral power, India is on par with China in terms of regional membership, but crucially, India's contribution to UN dues (0.8% of the overall) compared to China's (11.7% of the overall), Completely insignificant. In the survey of foreign policy leadership, ambition and effectiveness, China ranks first or fourth on four indicators, while India ranks fourth to sixth in Asia. The
Lowy Institute's overall measure of cultural influence ranks India fourth in Asia and China second. The Lowy Institute divides cultural influence into three elements, of which "cultural projection" and "information flow" are the most important. The
article evaluates a country's cultural influence in terms of international prestige and cultural exchange. The author of the article believes that combining these two data, India ranks fourth among the 25 Asian countries, while China ranks second.
In terms of cultural projection, Indian newspapers and TV/radio score better in foreign Google searches. It (India) also exports more "cultural services" (defined as "services designed to meet cultural interests or needs"). China does better on several other metrics. For example, in the Global 500 Brands list, India has only 9, while China has 73. In terms of the number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, India has 37 and China has 53. If tall skyscrapers are counted as a measure of prestige, China has 156 in its major financial centers, compared with 44 in India. The credibility of Indian passports is also lagging behind, with Chinese citizens being able to travel visa-free to 74 countries, while Indian citizens can only travel to 60 countries visa-free.
In terms of information flow, in 2016-2017, Indian higher education institutions received only 24,000 Asian students, while China received 225,000. As for the number of tourists, in mid-2017, India received 5 million Asian tourists, while the total number of Asian tourists to China was 41 million, ranking first among 25 Asian countries. In terms of total international tourists, India received 17 million, while China received 63 million.
Finally, in 2017 there was little difference in political influence between the two countries. The Governance Efficiency Index shows that India is ranked 12th among the top 43% of countries in the world and China is ranked 10th among the top 32% of countries.
The soft power comparison between India and China is mixed - China is far ahead of India, but in some cases the difference is not that big. However, the numbers don't tell the whole story.
lived in Southeast Asia for ten years and I think India is "worse" than the stats suggest. China is not absent from dialogues on international affairs, geopolitics, global and Asian economies, technology, and even contemporary culture (art, music, literature, fashion). But India cannot say the same. You can't have soft power if you don't engage in dialogue. When India engages in dialogue, confidence in its regional ambitions, economic, military and diplomatic capabilities, and its cultural and political fit in Southeast Asia is low - as detailed in the Southeast Asian Countries Survey, published annually by the Singapore Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
is not only in South Asia, but also globally. China evokes awe; India evokes silence, polite shaking of the head or exasperation. India may be on par with China in classical achievements, but contemporary India has been left far behind.