India is a middle power. It does not belong to the major powers which command a subject role in international politics and make vital decisions about the fate and destiny of the international system.
Nor is it, one of the minor powers which, with limited foreign policy autonomy, an object of the decisions °f the major powers.
In the area of military capabilities, India’s conventional capabilities are no match for those of the major Powers, though it can boast of the third largest armed forces after China and the United States. Moreover, it’s capabilities for long range or rapid deployments are limited relative to the five major powers.
India’s power projection capabilities are limited by the need to provide active defence on two fronts-one with the smaller but determined adversary, Pakistan and the other with the major power in the north, China. In terms of economic power, India, as it stepped into the new millennium, has emerged as the fourth largest economy in the world in Purchasing Power Parity, next only to US, China and Japan.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
However, its GNP is only $450 billion, and with a per capita income of only $450, India ranks low compared to any of the major powers. About 300 million of its population, that is, 30 per cent of the population, lives below the poverty line. Even in terms of economic competitiveness, in the year 2000, India ranked forty-ninth. India’s weak economic position is critical because other elements of power, such as military capability and the productivity of the population, tend to increase largely along with economic advancement.
In terms of population size, India is next only to China. But, population is both an asset and a curse for India. Its state of Uttar Pradesh (176 million) holds more population than that most of the major powers, Russia, UK (59 million), and France (59 million). India’s middle class, which is estimated to be around 300 million and pool of scientific manpower which is the third largest in the world, is definitely an asset, especially as all the major powers (barring China) are likely to depend on the Indian human resources because of their falling birth rates and ageing population. However, India’s large numbers of unskilled and illiterate people are a bane for the country’s power capability.
It is difficult to draw comparisons with regard to soft power indicators as these are intangible. Soft power resources complement hard power resources and in the increasingly interdependent world, their importance as low cost means for exercising and preserving a state’s power externally is becoming important.
Major Powers use norms to legitimise their international status. In this regard, India’s normative influence has been reasonably high in the developing world. India has been a consistent voice on behalf of the developing countries.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
As a leader of the nonaligned movement, it has championed global equality and new international economic order. This stance has been manifest in India’s positions at the international trade talks and in the United Nations forums such as the UNCTAD. Further, India’s own track record as a democracy also enhances its normative power. Major Powers use institutions to legitimise their position. In this context, India has been an active member of several international economic institutions and regimes.
It has exercised institutional power from time to time, through its leadership in G- 77, G-20 and the non-aligned group. It’s contribution to the UN peacekeeping efforts since the early 1950s also enhance its institutional influence.
India, however, ranks low in other sources of soft power such as state capacity, strategy and national leadership. Indian state has been unable to develop adequate strength to generate loyalty and discipline among its population. In the 1960s, India was even described as a ‘soft state’ because of its failure to enforce enacted policies. In the area of strategy and diplomacy, India’s record has been mixed. While the anti hegemonic theme of its diplomacy helped in establishing a role in the global institutions, forging third world solidarity and helped in bargain on North and South issues, it alienated the US and the Western countries, which attempted to contain and balance India by propping up a weaker Pakistan.
National leadership, important to translate other power resources into international influence, also has been a mixed bag. In the early years after independence, India’s international influence has been mainly because of the commanding leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru. Though India became inward looking after the reverses in the 1962 Sino India war, Mrs. Indira Gandhi did exert some influence overseas.