Every country possesses two kinds of power: hard power and soft power. Like other nations, India too has hard power—its military strength and a large economy. Even if per capita income is low, the overall size of the economy is large. As a result, although Bangladesh’s per capita income may be higher than India’s, its total economy is much smaller; therefore, Bangladesh cannot afford expensive fighter jets like India, nor can it independently launch artificial satellites into space.
That said, India’s hard power is still far weaker than that of the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and several European countries. This is precisely why India is increasingly finding itself cornered in the present global environment.
However, India’s soft power is enormous, and it could have been effectively leveraged for foreign policy. India’s strongest soft-power assets include Gandhi, Buddhism, Indian music, art, historical heritage, and cricket. Unfortunately, we have neglected to invest in these assets. Instead, despite having limited hard power, we keep leaping ahead proclaiming ourselves to be a “Vishwaguru” (world teacher).
It is both laughable and tragic that, influenced by the statements of a handful of godmen, we removed a Bangladeshi player from the IPL. If we thump our chests shouting “Hindu, Hindu,” why should people in Bangladesh not assert themselves as Muslims? Everyone knows—and sees—how Muslims are treated in India. Yet we behave as though we are unaware of this reality and demand good treatment for Hindus in Bangladesh. This is nothing but bullying. And the same bullying or assertiveness that we display toward smaller neighbors, we are unable to show in front of Trump.
Therefore, India should strive to maintain good relations with its neighboring countries. Instead, we are doing exactly the opposite. In the new Parliament building, a map of “Akhand Bharat” has been installed, depicting neighboring countries as parts of India. Bangladesh, Nepal, and other countries protested against this. It is difficult to understand what India gains from such actions.
India shares deep cultural affinities with Bangladesh—figures like Ritwik Ghatak, Nazrul Islam’s Shyama Sangeet (Kali devotional songs), hilsa fish, and much more. On the basis of these shared cultural roots, it would have been natural to maintain friendly relations with Bangladesh. Instead, we have damaged the relationship.
Winning the trust of the countries surrounding India is very much in India’s own interest. Smaller nations often harbor fear and distrust toward their larger neighbors. Like the European Union, India could have created a regional market involving these countries. Even if that required granting them certain economic concessions, it would ultimately have been beneficial for India.
The BCCI has enormous financial resources. It is said that nearly 80 percent of global cricket revenue is earned by the BCCI. But how is this money being used? Instead of using its financial strength to nurture cricket worldwide, the BCCI uses it to dominate and bully other cricket-playing nations. As a result, almost all other cricketing countries are now resentful of India.
Sri Lanka has a Buddhist majority. Buddhism originated in India. Yet we never view Sri Lanka from that perspective. Instead, we prefer to see Sri Lanka through the lens of how Lord Rama and Hanuman defeated them. Sri Lankans do not understand Hindi, yet so many people came to attend Mohammed Rafi’s concert in Colombo that the show had to be cancelled on the first day due to uncontrollable crowds and was held the next day instead. On that second day, the President or Prime Minister of Sri Lanka (the exact post is not recalled) was present on stage with Rafi.
Today, however, we impose Hindi forcefully even on Indian states and display the same arrogance. We have removed songs from films and proudly claim that old songs are no longer relevant.
I firmly believe that even by offering certain trade concessions, a unified market could have been created in the Indian subcontinent, thereby earning the trust of neighboring countries. This would, in turn, have strengthened India’s hard power as well. Of course, occasional tensions with neighbors would still arise—but in India’s own interest, such issues could have been managed with patience and empathy. The Indian government could have built a domestic political consensus around this approach. Those who created SAARC were not intoxicated when they did so.
But alas! Arnab Goswami and India Today invite Pakistanis onto their shows, pay them money, and use them merely to hurl abuses.
