The American visa ban on Narendra Modi was an example of 'soft power'. If 'soft power' or 'smart power' existed, the Indians should have dumped Modi even as Chief Minister of a province. Instead they elected him Prime Minister.

Tharoor thinks India should develop 'soft power'- for example in Africa. The Indians gave a University in Ghana a statue of Mahatma Gandhi. The students would have no truck with it because they had read on the internet that Gandhi was a racist. So much for soft power.

Who still believes in it? The answer is China. They've passed a law making it obligatory for films to promote the values of their regime. Will this increase China's soft power? Nope. It will reduce it as smart people become disaffected.

What 'soft power' did the US really have in the Brexit debate? None. It turned out Farage had more influence on America than Obama did.

Perhaps Tharoor knows of a time when the US highlighting of 'human rights' equated with soft power. To my knowledge, every time such 'soft power' was effective, it was a diplomatic own goal. In other words, your 'soft power' is only effective if what you are actually doing is cutting your own throat.

Tharoor thinks America was defeated in Vietnam and the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan because there is some deficiency in 'hard power'. No such deficiency exists. Irma Adelman pointed out that there was a purely economic way to win in Vietnam. She was ignored.

Spending treasure instead of blood is still part of 'hard power'. The Soviets could have shot every last Khalqi, evacuated the Parchamis, and subsidized competing tribes perhaps bringing back the King to preside over the chaos. They didn't do it though they pumped so much money into Kabul that it was cheaper to buy your TV or Hifi there than in Dubai or Hong Kong.

Tharoor thinks Gitmo reduced American 'soft power'. This is nonsense. Nobody cared. Obama himself forgot his promises in this regard and it never became an issue. What did become an issue was his reluctance- wise, it turns out- to get embroiled in Syria. By contrast, Libya- on which Hillary was gung ho- was a debacle for which Obama shifted the blame onto Cameron. However, it was the 'hard power' deficit thus displayed which laid the ground for a general recoiling from the corollary of the 'soft power' doctrine- viz. the notion that there is a 'rule bound' international community out there. Merkel is the last hold out here. But she'll be gone in a year and Europe reconstituted as a fortress- not something which wants to 'attract' yet more migrants.

'Soft power' is cool if you can move with your family to whoever is seduced by its 'cheap talk' charms. 'Hard power' is a 'costly signal'. It says you have to pay your dues to be a member of this club. Nobody rides for free. That's why hard power talks and bullshit walks.

There is another reason 'soft power' has had its day. Economists call it the 'McKelvey Chaos theorem'. Essentially, if policy space is multi-dimensional and multi-lateral then we know that 'agenda control' is decisive. Nye was saying 'hey! the U.S can get agenda control by making policy space multidimensional- e.g. linking a trade deal to human rights, enviormental sustainability, governance, judicial independence etc. Then, so long as we control the agenda, we can ensure we always get whatever outcome we want'.

What was the result? The very articulation of the 'soft power' doctrine led to the creation of a superior defense to it. Obama tries to scold Duterte. Guess who now looks a fool?

Tharoor writes as though even diplomats from his country were not subject to Jim Crow laws in America till the Fifties and early Sixties. Nobel Laureate Chandrashekar was barred from teaching in a College because he was a black man and some of students were female and white. All this was common knowledge in India when Tharoor was at School. Why is he pretending that America has always been viewed as soft and inviting?

True, things have changed. Still, today, even Trump goes out of his way to be nice to Indian-Americans- even appropriating Modi's Hindi slogan- it is because Hindu Americans are doing well financially and have not posed any sort of threat. The truth is nobody wants migrants who are poor, unskilled or who pose any sort of law and order threat. It is sheer hypocrisy to pretend otherwise.

What story did America really tell in this election? Is it not that the wife of a President doesn't get to be President just because her hubby was? Isn't that the same story that the last Indian election told?

Trump said he would be an awesome President. Hillary said she was the best qualified to be President. But the Presidency isn't a reward for having collected all the right badges. It is a job.

Modi, whom Tharoor's party disapproves off, got the job as P.M because he said he'd fix things and anyone could call him on his mobile if his people didn't fix things fast enough. It wasn't a sophisticated message but it was what people wanted to hear. The Government ought to do stuff for the people who pay its wages. If Modi loses the next election, it will be because he didn't deliver. The fact that Indian 'soft power' has increased to the point where Trump speaks a couple of words in Hindi or that British Prime Ministers prance around in Bollywood costumes when they visit the Taj Mahal carries no weight whatsoever.

