• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Christophe Jaffrelot"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "United States",
    "South Asia",
    "India"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Democracy",
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Religion"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Going Soft

India is less popular with ordinary Americans. But this may not be a problem for U.S.-India relations if hard power considerations make up for it.

Link Copied
By Christophe Jaffrelot
Published on Aug 11, 2015

Source: Indian Express

For decades, India capitalised on its soft power in its relations with the US. Its good image was largely due to its democratic reputation and a widely shared sentiment that Indians’ religious tolerance was akin to multiculturalism. The popularity of India in America also resulted from the remarkable achievements of its diaspora, the most educated and socioeconomically successful among Asian groups — a model community. 

Things are changing. The diaspora, including its Hindu component, is not viewed as favourably today. In a 2014 survey that asked how Americans feel about religious groups, the Pew Research Centre found that Hindus had a 50 per cent rating — Americans had a better opinion of Jews and Catholics, at 63 per cent and 62 per cent, as compared to Hindus, Mormons and Muslims, at 50, 48 and 40 per cent respectively. Evangelical Christians had an even lower approval rating of Hindus, only distrusting atheists and Muslims more. These figures came out while a number of Hindu temples were being attacked in the US, so much so that the department of justice began to record anti-Hindu crimes as a separate category.

This changing perception of Hindus has affected India’s image. In another survey conducted in 2013 by Pew, where it asked Americans about their opinion of other countries, Indians were viewed favourably by only 46 per cent of the interviewees. In comparison, Japan and Germany were viewed favourably by 70 and 67 per cent of Americans. Certainly India’s image suffered from press coverage of the recent rapes in its cities. But the aforementioned Pew figures stood in contrast to a similar, September 2014 survey, also by Pew — when the most-publicised rapes had already had an impact — in the immediate aftermath of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the US. At that time, 55 per cent Americans held a favourable view of India (coincidentally, the same percentage of Indians viewed America favourably). 

The erosion of India’s prestige in American eyes, therefore, seems to be related to their assessment of the religious situation in India. The American press has been highly critical of the instances of church burning, arson, burglary and vandalism that have taken place in India in 2014-15. Usually taciturn US Congressmen made scathing comments in this year’s report by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). In its section on India, it found that “derogatory comments by politicians”, “violent attacks” against minorities, “forced conversions”, and “ghar wapsi” episodes were regular occurrences. The guilty were named, and a number of three-letter acronyms — the BJP, RSS and VHP — were invoked frequently and unsparingly. The external affairs ministry spokesperson, Vikas Swarup, claimed that the report was based on a “limited understanding of India, its Constitution and its society”. Parallel to the USCIRF report, Pew published in February a study on religion and public life that rated India second on its social hostilities index — an indicator calculated based on incidents of violence, proselytisation and hostile actions towards other religions carried out within a country — ahead of Pakistan and behind only Israel. The report deemed anti-conversion laws in a number of Indian states to be “deeply problematic” and noted that BJP president Amit Shah had called for a nationwide anti-conversion law in 2015. The Pew annual report has kept India on its tier two list of countries since 2009, a list that includes Kazakhstan and Malaysia. 

The US Congress’s negative rating of religious freedom in India is partly due to the influence of the American Evangelical lobby, which had paved the way for the International Religious Freedom Act, 1998, and which paid great attention to the 2002 Gujarat violence. Under Felice D. Gaer, who became a USCIRF commissioner in 2001, the Christian-specific agenda of this policy was to become much larger, encompassing the protection of all religions. The 2002 violence took place in the immediate aftermath of these changes, and Gaer tried to enter India to survey the damage from the riots but was denied entry by the government. This happened alongside a visit to Gujarat by two Congressmen who could report on what they had seen. It was largely these individuals and groups who invoked the 1998 act and presented their views to the Dick Cheney office, all of which led to the denial of an American visa for Modi in 2005. 

But the Evangelical lobby is not the only player in that game. President Barack Obama himself during his visit in January invited India to be true to its secular tradition in a speech he made at Siri Fort Auditorium. “Your Article 25 says people are free to practise their own religion,” Obama reminded the crowd. 

However, religious freedom is not the only irritant today. The US also expressed disapproval when India placed the US-based Ford Foundation on a national security watchlist. The US demanded clarification on what appeared to be a crackdown on and harassment of NGOs, including the blockage of the bank accounts of Greenpeace India and an investigation into the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The erosion of the soft power component in US-India relations may not be a problem if hard power considerations make up for it. Washington still values New Delhi as a partner against China and in its fight against Islamism. Therefore, India stands to benefit from a well-cultivated alliance with the US on a number of issues, ranging from acceptance into the nuclear club, information-sharing between the intelligence agencies of the two countries, containing Pakistan and bringing stability to the geopolitical region. More importantly, perhaps, economic considerations tend to weigh heavily on the American side, including the high volumes of institutional and direct investment that flows from America to India.

Geopolitical and economic factors may lead the pragmatic Americans to ignore moral issues vis-à-vis India, as has happened vis-à-vis so many other countries, including Pakistan, where military coups have hardly come in the way of US policy when fighting the Soviet Union or the Taliban were top priority. But if India-US relations take this route, they may become purely transactional — unless the reports and surveys mentioned above are taken seriously by the government of India. Interestingly, programmes like ghar wapsi have taken a back seat, and no church has been attacked lately. 

This article originally appeared in the Indian Express.

About the Author

Christophe Jaffrelot

Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program

Jaffrelot’s core research focuses on theories of nationalism and democracy, mobilization of the lower castes and Dalits (ex-untouchables) in India, the Hindu nationalist movement, and ethnic conflicts in Pakistan.

    Recent Work

  • Research
    The BJP in Power: Indian Democracy and Religious Nationalism
      • Rahul Verma
      • +4

      Milan Vaishnav, Rahul Verma, Rukmini S., …

  • Article
    Ceasefire Violations in Kashmir: A War by Other Means?

      Christophe Jaffrelot

Christophe Jaffrelot
Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program
Christophe Jaffrelot
Political ReformDemocracySecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyReligionUnited StatesSouth AsiaIndia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for Europe

    The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The EU Needs a Third Way in Iran

    European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.

      Richard Youngs

  • Trump United Nations multilateralism institutions 2236462680
    Article
    Resetting Cyber Relations with the United States

    For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.

      • Christopher Painter

      Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not Less

    Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.

      Dimitar Bechev

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe on Iran: Gone with the Wind

    Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.

      Pierre Vimont

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.