Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Long before modern diplomatic terms existed, Chanakya laid down a fundamental truth of statecraft in the Arthashastra: “Strength is power, and happiness is the end of power. Power comes from wealth and the army; without them, even the most noble king is ignored.“
Centuries later, as we discuss India’s rising stature on the world stage, our commentators often drift away from this cold realism. We love celebrating our cultural reach—boasting about yoga studios in Western capitals, Bollywood movies across Eurasia, our massive diaspora, and our ancient philosophy. Foreign policy experts frequently package these assets as “soft power” and treat them as our secret geopolitical weapon.
It is an appealing story. It makes us feel that our culture is actively shaping global events. But Chanakya’s warning forces an uncomfortable question: Do we over-celebrate our soft power while neglecting hard capability?
If we look at statecraft coldly, a harsh truth emerges: soft power is largely an illusion when real crisis strikes. Cultural goodwill makes a nation liked. It does not make a nation feared, obeyed, or accommodated. When international tensions rise, soft power buys zero strategic vetoes.
Look at how global power functions when push comes to shove. When states vote at the United Nations, negotiate trade agreements, or share critical technology, they do not care about cultural affection. They do not care how many citizens in their capital eat Indian food or watch Indian films.
They ask the exact same cold, transactional questions Chanakya posed millennia ago:
- What is your domestic manufacturing capacity?
- Can you build and sustain your own weapons systems?
- How strong is your military deterrence?
- How secure are your energy and maritime supply chains?
In statecraft, national interest is the only currency that trades at par. Hard power sets the rules of the game; soft power merely decorates the room.
Recent global events prove this point clearly. When Houthi rebels disrupted global shipping lanes in the Red Sea, or when energy markets fractured due to regional wars, decades of European “cultural diplomacy” and moral posturing could not secure trade routes. What mattered instantly was naval presence, missile defence systems, and industrial capacity.
Similarly, when India navigated intense Western pressure over buying discounted Russian crude oil, it was not our cultural prestige that secured diplomatic space for New Delhi. It was India’s massive economic scale, critical geographic position in the Indo-Pacific, and hard market leverage that forced global powers to accommodate our stance.
We fall into a dangerous trap when we over-celebrate soft power and treat it as a substitute for hard capacity. Nations do not become global powers because their culture is popular. Their culture becomes popular because their economy is formidable, their military is strong, and their technology is cutting-edge.
American culture did not build American power in the twentieth century. American factories, aircraft carriers, and dollars built the platform that projected American culture worldwide. Soft power was simply the shadow cast by the giant of hard power.
When a developing country spends excessive energy celebrating its cultural footprint while lagging in semiconductor fabrication, heavy manufacturing, and defence innovation, it falls into a strategic vanity trap. It is like a company celebrating its famous logo while its bank account bleeds dry. A famous logo gets you noticed, but only cash flow keeps the business alive.
Cultural diplomacy certainly has a place. It boosts tourism, creates friendly ties, and improves public perceptions abroad. But statecraft requires us to never confuse friendly feelings with strategic leverage. When an adversary plans its next move, it backs down because of your armed forces and industrial base, not your festivals or cinema.
As India navigates an increasingly unstable multipolar world, our national focus must remain razor-sharp. We must stop treating soft power as a victory in itself. Cultural influence is a welcome secondary benefit, but our primary focus must remain hard power: building factories, securing energy independence, mastering critical technologies, and strengthening state capacity.
In global politics, goodwill is a luxury. Hard leverage is survival.
Submitted by: R Srinivasa Murthy
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.