Why does China consistently beat India on soft power?
Kanti Bajpai writes: Classical India may stand alongside classical China in the regard it garners, but contemporary India has been left behind. Until we recognise that, we can’t do much about it.
indianexpress.com
China’s hard-power advantage over India — economic power plus military power — is well known. Less understood is its soft power advantage. Soft power is getting others to do what you want by persuasion. Soft-power theorists suggest that the ability to persuade rests on the power of attraction. We in India may think we are more attractive than China. The numbers show otherwise.
Joseph Nye, the political scientist who gave us the notion of soft power, suggests that it consists of foreign policy, cultural and political influence. Foreign policy influence comes from the legitimacy and morality of one’s dealings with other countries. Cultural influence is based on others’ respect for one’s culture. Political influence is how much others are inspired by one’s political values. Soft power is difficult to measure. Fortunately, the Lowy Institute in Australia has produced various measures which correspond roughly to foreign policy influence, cultural influence and political influence.
In diplomatic influence, overall, India ranks sixth and China ranks first among 25 Asian powers, which include the US (given the US’s huge diplomatic, military, and economic presence in Asia). Lowy further distinguishes between diplomatic networks, multilateral power, and perceived foreign policy leadership, ambition and effectiveness. On networks, India nearly matches China in the number of regional embassies it has but is considerably behind in the number of embassies worldwide (176 to 126). Multilaterally, India matches China in terms of regional memberships, but, crucially, its contributions to the UN capital budget are completely dwarfed by Chinese contributions (11.7 per cent to 0.8 per cent of the total). In surveys of foreign policy leadership, ambition, and effectiveness, China ranks first or fourth on four measures while India ranks between fourth and sixth in Asia.
Lowy’s overall measure of cultural influence ranks India in fourth place and China in second place in Asia. Lowy then divides cultural influence into three elements, of which “cultural projection” and “information flows” are the most important.
Lowy’s overall measure of cultural influence ranks India in fourth place and China in second place in Asia. Lowy then divides cultural influence into three elements, of which “cultural projection” and “information flows” are the most important.
Having lived for a decade in Southeast Asia, my sense is that the “whole story” is even worse for India than the numbers reveal. In no conversation about international affairs, regional geopolitics, global and Asian economy and technology, and even contemporary culture (art, music, literature, fashion) is China absent. The same cannot be said for India. You can’t have soft power if you’re not even in the conversation. When India is in the conversation, confidence in its regional ambitions, economic, military, and diplomatic capabilities, and cultural and political fit with Southeast Asia are thought to be low — as clearly documented in the State of Southeast Asia Survey Reports issued annually by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.
Except for South Asia, this is the case all over the world. China evokes awe; India evokes silence, a polite shake of the head, or exasperation. Classical India may stand head-to-head with classical China in the regard it garners, but contemporary India has been left a distance behind. Until we recognise that, we can’t do much about it.
Translation:
中国在硬实力——经济实力加上军事实力——上优于印度，这是众所周知的。但是知道中国的软实力也同样具有优势的人并不多。软实力是说服别人做你想做的事。软实力理论家认为，说服能力，取决于吸引力的力量。
我们印度人认为自己比中国更具影响力，但数据显示并非如此。
为我们提出软实力概念的政治学家约瑟夫•奈认为，
软实力包括外交政策、文化和政治影响力。外交政策的影响力源于与他国打交道的合法性和道德性。文化的影响力基于他国对自己（国家）文化的尊重。政治影响力是指他方能在多大程度上受到一方政治价值观的鼓舞。软实力很难衡量。幸运的是，澳大利亚洛伊国际政策研究所制定了多项指标，用于大致衡量（一国的）外交政策、文化和政治影响力。
在
外交影响力方面，总体而言，在包括美国在内的25个亚洲大国中（鉴于美国在亚洲的外交、军事和经济存在巨大，所以囊括了美国），
印度排名第六，而中国位列第一。洛伊研究所进一步区分了外交网络、多边力量和公认的外交政策领导力、雄心和效力。在
外交网络方面，印度的地区大使馆数量几乎与中国相当，但在全球的大使馆数量上却远远落后于中国（中国有176 个，而印度有126个）。而在
多边力量方面，印度在地区成员资格方面与中国相当，但至关重要的是，印度对联合国会费的贡献（占总体的0.8%）与中国的贡献（占总体的11.7%）相比，完全是小巫见大巫。在对外交政策领导力、雄心和效力的调查中，中国在四个指标上排名第一或第四，而印度在亚洲排名第四至第六。
洛伊研究所对文化影响力的总体衡量中，印度在亚洲排第四，中国排第二。洛伊研究所将文化影响分为三个要素，其中“文化投射”和“信息流”是最重要的。
文章用国际声望和文化交流两个方面评价一个国家的文化影响力，文章作者认为综合这两个方面的数据，印度排在亚洲25国中的第四位，而中国列居第二位。
在
文化投射方面，印度的报纸和电视/广播在国外谷歌搜索方面得分更高。它（印度）还输出更多的“文化服务”(定义为“旨在满足文化利益或需求的服务”)。中国则在其他几项指标上做得更好。例如，在全球品牌 500 强榜单中，印度只有 9 个，而中国有 73 个。就联合国教科文组织世界遗产数量，印度有 37 个，中国有 53 个。如果把很高的摩天大楼也算作是一种威望的衡量标准，那么中国在其主要金融中心拥有156座，印度则只有44座。印度护照的信誉程度也落后了，中国公民可以免签证前往74个国家，而印度公民只能免签证前往60个国家。
在
信息流方面，2016至2017年，印度的高等教育机构仅接收24000名亚洲留学生，而中国接收了225000名。至于游客人数，在2017年中，印度接待亚洲游客500万人次，而赴中国的亚洲游客共有 4100 万人次，在25 个亚洲国家中排名第一。就国际游客总数，印度接待了1700万人次，而中国接待了6300万人次。
最后，2017年两国的政治影响力相差不大。治理效率指数显示，印度在全球排名前43%的国家中排名第12，中国在前32%的国家中排名第10。
印度和中国在软实力上的比较喜忧参半——中国远远超过印度，但在某些情况下差异并不大。
然而，数字并不能说明一切。
在东南亚生活了十年，我认为印度的“整体”比数据显示的还要糟糕。在有关国际事务、地缘政治、全球与亚洲经济、技术，乃至于当代文化（艺术、音乐、文学、时尚）的对话中，中国都没有缺席。但印度就不能这样说了。如果你都不参与对话，你就不可能拥有软实力。当印度参与对话时，人们对其地区雄心、经济、军事和外交能力以及其与东南亚文化和政治契合度的信心很低——详列于新加坡东南亚研究所每年发布的《东南亚国家调查报告》。
不止南亚，就全球而言也是如此。
中国唤起了敬畏；印度引起了沉默、礼貌的摇头或恼怒。印度在古典时期所获得的成就方面可能能与中国并驾齐驱，但当代印度已被远远地甩在后面。
WARNING 
