Rare is the book whose Foreword begins with a blurb-ready rave. Given the task of introducing this anthology of essays on Bollywood, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University, Sweden, and Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, enthuses, “Professor Anjali Gera Roy’s latest edited undertaking, The Magic of Bollywood: At Home and Abroad, is a joy to read.” That simple assessment, though, is quickly compounded. “Not only does it bring together a collection of very insightful and authoritative essays probing the multifarious reach and impact of Bollywood movies within and outside India, but it also sets the stage for a scholarly appreciation of the relationship between culture, politics, international relations, and the power games that such relationships entail.” Rarer still is the book whose Foreword, so concisely and admirably, lays out exactly what lies in store, in terms of text as well as tone.
The editor, in her Introduction, advances the term “soft power,” which was coined by the political scientist Joseph Nye to connote “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion.” Nye argues that the soft power of Asian nations such as Japan, India and China is on the rise, and that “Indian films, with a sprawling audience across Asia, Middle East and Africa, are the cutting edge of the country’s soft power.” Shashi Tharoor, subsequently, deposited this phrase into the language of diplomacy and defined it in relation to Bollywood, stating that “Bollywood is bringing its brand of glitzy entertainment not just to the Indian diaspora in the US, UK or Canada, but around the globe, to the screens of Syrians and Senegalese alike.” (And lo, we have a chapter titled Indophilie and Bollywood’s popularity in Senegal: Strands of Identity Dynamics.) Roy, though, is quick to stick a pin in Tharoor’s bubble of optimism, noting that he seemed to “reiterate exaggerated media claims about Bollywood’s global invasion that cannot be substantiated by hard facts as they appear to be at sharp variance with actual figures on cinematic exports.”
Therein lies the rub. How, without figures to analyse and interpret, do we substantiate so nebulous an entity as soft power? David J Schaefer and Kavita Karan attempt an answer in their chapter titled Bollywood and Soft Power: Content Trends and Hybridity in Popular Hindi Cinema. First, a systematic content analysis is performed on a random sample of the most financially successful Hindi films released between 1947 and 2007, and two sets of variables are conceptualised for coding and analysis: Indian content and external content. (The former includes Indian geography, Indo-Eastern culture, Indian political nationalism, traditional institutions, and classical arts; the latter comprises international geography, Western cultural practices, non-Indian political nationalism, modern institutions, and contemporary popular culture.) Then, a survey is conducted to assess the awareness of soft power variables among “elite members of the public.” The results, once we speed past rows of intimidating numbers, provide “a much needed systematic and empirical examination of the claims made by both proponents and critics of India’s goals of using Bollywood cinema as a means of extending its soft power.”
It is fascinating (and also somewhat surreal) to see such rigorous research being expended on something that we, in our country, consume as a given. The nature of this research undoubtedly positions this book for the academically minded reader (with more than a passing knowledge of statistical analysis), but even a skim-through is rewarding on a number of levels, giving us a glimpse into Bollywood’s inroads into markets like Germany and Indonesia and Toronto, the impact of Bollywood internet forums on Australian cultural diplomacy, Pakistani characters in Bollywood films, the transformation of Hindi cinema to Bollywood, and even the culture of the tawaif (courtesan) film, which Teresa Hubel acknowledges as “a distinctive Indian genre, one that has no real equivalent in the Western film industry.” How, you ask, is this related to soft power? Hubel explains, “There are few things more attractive to a Western audience that has been primed by its centuries-old fascination with Eastern femininity than the Indian courtesan figure, which reaches global audiences primarily through the exportation of subtitled DVD.” And you thought it was just a movie.
An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2012 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Baradwaj Rangan 
vishal yogin
September 26, 2012
And the same applies to literature. If the government were to select a package of say 3000 books which are a mix of the simple to the moderately complex fiction – that would make it very convenient for people who really wanted to learn the said Indian language – eg Hindi.
This is another example of soft power.
But anyway we are neglecting our languages and so they wont thrive.
Of course, since our currency is ridiculously cheap in the developed world – they dont really have a problem like we do in reciprocity. (for example, I thought of learning Japanese or German, but there is no way I can afford to get a stack of books if they cost 6+ euros each)
Since language learning is not as easy or passive or provides instant gratification as reading in translation or watching with subtitles – I guess my idea wont find a wide scope for application in a work-obsessed money-driven modern life.
I was shocked to see the quality of subtitles in the Gangs of Wasseypur dvd – it was atrocious. I wonder how would people really enjoy watching it, on par with the people who know Hindi.
LikeLike
UPN EarnesTaster
September 27, 2012
God , I can’t believe these infidels who go on saying ‘Bollywood’. On the other hand, on has to admire their tenacity in repeatedly using a bastardized term for an industry they apparently appreciate. ‘Luck by Chance’ is an outstanding movie, made all the more special when Dimple Kapadia’s character coolly says ‘We are the Hindi film industry, not Bollywood’. And I didn’t find a single mention here of the power of videographed songs in Indian films -that is the single greatest contribution of Indian films to the world and an asset (call it soft, hard whatever) that is on par with any other cinematic element of the rest of the world. If there’s one overseas country which has little cultural impact in India but whose cinematic soft power down the decades has wowed me, it is Japan.
LikeLike
vijay
September 28, 2012
“God , I can’t believe these infidels who go on saying ‘Bollywood’. On the other hand, on has to admire their tenacity in repeatedly using a bastardized term for an industry they apparently appreciate.”
Must have been a lazy media creation which got stuck. Like the latest annoying trend of suffixing “-gate” to all scams. So you have everything from Radiagate to coalgate and what not for our local scams, context be damned. News headlinesla kooda originality illa. Amusing fuckers, these media guys.
LikeLike
brangan
September 29, 2012
vishal yogin: “But anyway we are neglecting our languages and so they wont thrive.” I agree with you about the overall sadness of this, but why do you use the word “neglect”? Do you see another way out to become successful (of course, “success” means different things to different people, but let’s just talk about wide reach of your work for now) these days by using one of “our languages” (and therefore severely limiting your exposure)? Would like to hear your thoughts about this.
LikeLike