The contradictions in India’s foreign and defence policies are a cause of much befuddlement, concern and frustration to analysts and outside observers. India is unique in many regards. Fractured parliamentary politics coexist with a highly centralised foreign policy-making apparatus. An overt nuclear weapons program goes hand in hand with stated goals of disarmament, minimalism and no-first-use. Cutting edge military technology stands alongside outmoded forms of military organisation. A million-strong army complements strong political-bureaucratic controls and just over 2.2 per cent GDP defence spending.

 India’s actions since November’s Mumbai terrorist attacks are similarly contradictory. Talk by the prime minister and external affairs minister of “no options being off the table” with regards to punitive action against Pakistan have gone alongside attempts to use international diplomatic pressure to achieve India’s goals.

The cliché is that India is living in a dangerous neighbourhood. No other country has two nuclear-armed neighbours with whom it has fought wars in the last half century. In this context, India’s balance of diplomacy and defence, of aggression and restraint is in many ways the embodiment of “smart power”, a term that recently gained prominence after its use by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her confirmation hearings.

Harvard academic Joseph Nye, who is among those who have taken credit for coining the term, recently elaborated upon smart power in the Los Angeles Times. “Smart power is the combination of hard and soft power,” he wrote. “The resources that produce soft power for a country include its culture (when it is attractive to others), its values (when they are attractive and not undercut by inconsistent practices) and policies (when they are seen as inclusive and legitimate).”

... contd.