Are we a "Soft" State?

This article examines whether India can be considered a "soft” state, exploring its use of both hard and soft power in addressing domestic and international challenges. Through historical examples like the 1971 war with Pakistan, the annexation of Sikkim, and strategic interventions in Kargil and the Maldives, the essay highlights India's ability to assert its strength. It also critiques instances of vulnerability, such as the 1962 China war, the Kandahar hijacking, and recurring terrorist attacks. Emphasising the limitations of soft power alone, the essay argues for a balanced approach, combining hard power to ensure security with soft power to build goodwill.

The term "soft state", introduced by Gunnar Myrdal in Asian Drama (1968), refers to countries where public institutions, laws, and policies exist but are weakly enforced due to corruption, lack of accountability, and ineffective governance. In such states, laws may be disregarded, public officials act in self-interest, and there may be a significant gap between policy formulation and implementation.

Indira Gandhi, once regarded as a powerful global leader, demonstrated through decisive actions that India was not a "soft" state. Her leadership during the 1971 war with Pakistan, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, the annexation of Sikkim in 1975, and the suppression of separatist movements, are key examples. In 1971, Pakistan's military crackdown on the civilian population of East Pakistan forced over 10 million refugees to flee to India. This crisis arose from the military's rejection of election results, which had made the Awami League the largest party.

The military dictatorship under Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan and political leaders of West Pakistan feared a power shift from Islamabad to Dhaka or even the secession of East Pakistan, despite assurances from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to resolve the issue within Pakistan's framework. The ensuing repression and refugee crisis drew India into a war with Pakistan. When the United States proposed a resolution in the UN Security Council warning India against war, Indira Gandhi countered by signing a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union, which then vetoed the US resolution. These actions affirmed India's position as a strong and resolute nation.

India's use of hard power has been evident in various instances, such as the successful repulsion of Pakistani intruders during the Kargil conflict in 1999 and a swift intervention in the Maldives in 1988 to thwart a coup against President Gayoom. However, there have also been notable setbacks. These include the defeat in the 1962 war with China, the challenges faced by the Indian Peacekeeping Force in Sri Lanka in 1987, the 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight to Kandahar, and recurring terrorist attacks orchestrated from Pakistan. These incidents often highlight India's cautious approach, aimed at avoiding the image of a regional aggressor, which at times emboldens adversaries.

The 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks exposed significant vulnerabilities in India's counter-terrorism strategies. Even a year later, the lone captured terrorist, Ajmal Kasab, was not convicted, and the masterminds remained at large. This perceived inaction led to criticism of India's resolve in handling such crises. Nonetheless, India has sought dialogue over military action, especially with Pakistan, to address volatile situations in the region.

Meanwhile, China has been steadily enhancing its strategic influence, such as by developing Sri Lanka's Hambantota port and building infrastructure near the Indian border, enabling rapid troop mobilization. These developments underscore the limitations of relying solely on soft power to address security challenges. While soft power fosters goodwill and provides support for adversaries, it must be complemented by hard power to ensure comprehensive security.

With our actions in the 1971 war, even when the international forces were against our strategies, boldly signing a treaty with the Soviet Union proved us to be a “strong state” and earned the respect and admiration of the world. But against these examples, we have seen the spectacular failures of the Indian Peacekeeping Force in Sri Lanka in 1987, the hijacking of Indian Airlines in 1999, the bleeding of terrorists in the country, and the countless infiltrations from Bangladesh. “India is often seen as a cleft stick on such matters.”

The 26/11 terror attacks shook the world, yet the terrorists were not convicted. India knows that its soft power cannot solve its security challenges; to counter terrorism, there is no substitute for hard power. At the same time, hard power without soft power stirs up resentments and enmities. India needs a more systematic approach to its soft power strategy. The goodwill India enjoys among African, Arab, and Afghan populations showcases the potential of soft power in fostering international relations. As India enters its seventh decade of independence, its democratic pluralism, openness to diverse ideas, and commitment to its people's creative potential are its greatest strengths. By addressing internal challenges and leveraging both hard and soft power, India can position itself as a leader in the 21st century.

Kumar Aryan is a student pursuing M.A. Sociology from Jamia Millia Islamia.

Edited By: Sidra Aman

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.