Culture is a difficult term to define. Etymologically, it is derived from the Latin cultura, which means to tend, cultivate or till. Thus, agriculture is an older use than culture in the sense of art, beliefs, institutions, rituals, religion, language, law and morality. In its universal declaration on cultural diversity, UNESCO effectively defined culture as ?the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs?.

India is a large country. India is a heterogeneous country. In the absence of a common language and common religion, culture is difficult to define in the Indian context. There are sub-cultures within the country and there is a great deal of syncretism and cultural pluralism. Nor should any discussion on India?s cultural influence be restricted to post-Independence India. By its very construct, culture isn?t constrained by confines of political and administrative processes and decisions and is reflective of the greater Indian sub-continent. In that sense of diffusion down the ages, there are elements of architecture, music, dance, theatre, films, art, literature, cuisine, attire, sports and religion, all of which have crossed borders.

In contrast to cultural influence, soft power, as a term, is of relatively recent vintage and is identified both with Joseph Nye and with the American influence. In a different day and age, this is reminiscent of Kautilya?s Arthashastra, particularly the ninth chapter, where there is a reference to sama (conciliation or pacification), dana (gifts), danda (coercion, punishment or force) and bheda (dissension). In that jargon, the point being made is that sama results from cultural influences and is cheaper and more effective than dana, danda and bheda. And if sama is successful, the other three options may well be unnecessary.

?My thanks, also, to some of the speakers on this platform who, referring to the delegates from the Orient, have told you that these men from far-off nations may well claim the honour of bearing to different lands the idea of toleration. I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance.? That is a quote from Swami Vivekananda?s welcome address at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in September 1893.

This becomes relevant in defining an Indian identity, since such an identity isn?t easy to define in the absence of a common religion or language. Any attempt to construct such an identity would perforce have to build on a strong sense of religion and elements of tolerance and non-violence.

It is not quite the case that India has never practised hard power, the Chola, and to a lesser extent the Pandyan, empires are counter-examples. However, such exceptions are rare. The practice of soft power was more common and pervasive, driven by both commercial and religious considerations. Maritime trade routes connected India with East Asia and Rome. There was a spice route via Africa and India was also on the southern part of the silk route. Trade and religious missionaries both used the same routes. And with the exception of Ashoka and to a lesser extent Kanishka, neither flow was state-driven.

Indeed, soft power works best when it is not state-driven. Until recent times, Indian soft power was identified with religious overtones ?Sri Aurobindo, Chinmayananda, Dayanand Saraswati, Guru Nanak Dev, Gyaneshwar, Sant Kabir, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Anandamayi Ma, Osho Rajneesh, Paramahansa Yogananda, Ramakrishna Paramahansa, Sathya Sai Baba, Shirdi Sai Baba, Swami Sivananda, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Swami Vivekananda and assorted practitioners of yoga. This certainly did not mean that this influence was only restricted to the Indian diaspora. Invariably, it transcended the diaspora. Though not quite the same, one should also mention the influence of Mahatma Gandhi, imported by South Africa as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and re-exported with significant value addition as Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi has influenced and inspired Martin Luther King, James Lawson, Nelson Mandela, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Steve Biko and Aung San Suu Kyi.

The post-1991 economic reforms and India?s growing economic clout delinked Indian soft power from the historical religious overtones. This is now reminiscent of American soft power and is a phenomenon that has also occurred in China.

Figures on languages spoken globally are somewhat unreliable, since they typically include native speakers and don?t include those who speak the language as a second language. Subject to this, Mandarin is the most widely spoken language in the world, with a range of speakers between 873 million and 1.2 billion. Hindi or Hindustani comes next, with a range between 366 million and 650 million, the upper end of the range resulting from the inclusion of Urdu and secondary language speakers. English, Bengali, Punjabi, Telugu, Marathi and Tamil also figure in the top-20 languages of the world. If one includes all speakers of English, including second and third languages, 1.143 million people speak English.

Of these, the UK accounts for 59.6 million. The US (215.4 million), India (90 million) and Nigeria (79 million) are ahead of UK. Other than its implications for business-process outsourcing and knowledge-process outsourcing, this knowledge of English has led to several Indian (or of Indian ethnic origins) authors writing with great felicity in English ?Dhan Gopal Mukerji (Newberry Medal in 1928), Raja Rao, Nirad C Chaudhuri, RK Narayan, Mulk Raj Anand, Khuswant Singh, Salman Rushdie (Booker 1981, Booker of Bookers 1992, Best of Bookers 2008), Bharati Mukherjee, Vikram Seth (Commonwealth Writers Prize, 1994), Anita Desai, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala (Booker 1975), Kiran Desai (Booker 2006), Arundhati Roy (Booker 1997), Chitra Banerjee Divakurni, Raj Kamal Jha, Jhumpa Lahiri (Pulitzer Prize 2000), Amit Chaudhuri, Suketu Mehta, Amitav Ghosh, Vikas Swarup, Rohinton Mistry, David Davidar, Upamanyu Chatterjee, Aravind Adiga (Booker 2008) and the third generation Indian VS Naipaul (Booker 1971, Nobel Prize 2001). This changes India?s image in subtle and not so subtle ways.

?(To be continued)

The author is a noted economist