The following article originally appeared in The Hindustan Times on 18 May 2018.
Following India in international affairs is a lot like
following its cricket team. In the media and among the general public,
successes are met with unquestioned adulation, and flag-waving. Just as easily,
and often quite suddenly, setbacks result in woeful laments and
self-flagellation. Meanwhile, old timers wax nostalgic about gentler days when
India successfully held out for a stalemate. The reality is, of course, a mixed
picture. As in cricket, India boasts considerable strengths relative to others
in international relations. But its weaknesses need to be appreciated,
understood, and — whenever possible — addressed. Despite the difficulties of
such an exercise in a more polarised political environment, an objective
assessment of India’s international power is necessary.
Fortunately, the Lowy Institute, a think tank in
Australia, now provides a helpful resource in its online Asia Power Index. The
Index painstakingly compiles data on 25 Asian powers — from the United States
to Pakistan, Russia to New Zealand — along eight measures, 27 sub-measures, and
114 indicators. The impressively researched and delightfully presented online
interactive effort offers some useful insights on comparative international
power, although I would personally quibble with some of the indicators used.
(Full disclosure: I was one of the dozens of experts consulted by the Lowy
Institute on some of the qualitative assessments used in the index.)
What does the Asia Power Index tell us about India’s
resources and influence? Overall, India ranks fourth in Asia in power (with a
rating of 41.5), marginally behind Japan (42.1), but well behind the United
States (85) and China (75.5). India also comes across as a relatively
well-rounded power. It features fourth on overall economic resources, military
capabilities, and diplomatic influence, and third in cultural influence.
Not surprisingly, most of India’s positive attributes
relate to its sheer size and large population. India clearly benefits from
having a large military force, conventional military capabilities, and nuclear
and strategic missile programmes. India also fares positively in future
projections, based on its economic trajectory, military spending, and growing
workforce. Its large size also translates into military, diplomatic and
cultural influence. India’s military partnerships — reflected in defence
consultations, joint training and arms procurement — stand it in good stead.
India also benefits from a wide diplomatic network, membership of major multilateral
institutions and political leadership. Its cultural influence is also rated
highly, largely as a result of its sizeable diaspora, English-language media
and rich cultural heritage.
But the Index exposes some glaring weaknesses, primarily
in three areas. The first concerns its anaemic economic influence. Barring
overall gross domestic product, India fares poorly on most economic indicators
such as international leverage (6th), connectivity (7th), and technology (14th)
as a result of such factors as the lack of rupee reserves and transactions,
poor productivity and low R&D spending. India ranks 6th in geo-economic
security due to a high dependence on energy and raw material imports. And it
features a woeful 11th in economic diplomacy due to a paucity of free trade
agreements.
Second, while India’s military resources are undoubtedly
vast and reasonably sophisticated, its military influence is limited in some
respects. India fares particularly poorly in terms of arms transfers (7th), as
a consequence of a feeble military-industrial base. Additionally, despite its
large military capabilities, India’s ability to deploy them in Asia is ranked
only 6th, a testament to its limited force projection capabilities. In one area
in which Indians might differ considerably with the Index’s assumptions,
considerable importance is attached to military alliances, which India eschews
and perceives as limiting. Instead, India compensates in a growing network of
robust military partnerships, where it rates far better (5th).
Third, India features particularly poorly in terms of
institutional stability, which reflects such elements as government
effectiveness, public health and civil unrest. Taken together, the fact that
its measures of influence are less impressive than its aggregate resources
means that India is deemed an underachiever by the Power Index. However, this
applies equally to other large Asian countries whose per capita indicators are
low, including China, Indonesia and Pakistan. It should be no surprise that
countries that are well-resourced on a per capita basis — such as Japan,
Singapore, Australia, and South Korea — are among the overachievers, that can
more effectively translate resources into influence and thereby punch above
their weights.
Just like its gifted batsmen and crafty spinners in
cricket, India should appreciate and exploit its relative strengths. It boasts
a sizeable military, is more resilient than in the past and is on a positive
economic, military, and demographic trajectory. It wields reasonable diplomatic
clout, benefits from a growing network of military partnerships and has an
influential diaspora and media. But just as Indian cricket realised the need
for a dedicated pace academy to produce fast bowlers, its international
political weaknesses need to be redressed. This will require creating greater
economic leverage through better connectivity, trade negotiations, and R&D
investments; improving its military industrial base and power projection
capabilities; and improving resilience through administrative, law and order,
and public health reforms.