From Soft Power to Cultural Gravity: Authenticity as South Asia’s New Strategy

For decades the art of cultural diplomacy was understood as a state-centric enterprise. Joseph Nye articulated this as soft power and defined it as strategic projection of a nation's cultural assets. From foreign ministers operating as brand architects to states broadcasting curated narratives, the belief was upheld that projection equated to attraction.

Later this view was critiqued by various IR scholars like Amitav Acharya and Roxanne Lynn Doty. Acharya argues that everyday people co-create influence whereas Doty highlights the role of ordinary communities and “folk” practices in shaping international politics. Drawing from the insights of these scholars, I argue in this piece that a new form of influence has emerged, defined by a growing tension in international relations between the stiff, top-down force which I call “political friction” vs the organic, bottom-up pull of “cultural gravity.” This is not just a media trend, It's a structural shift in how influence is generated, a shift best understood through a constructivist lens, the view that state power is derived not just from material capabilities, but from the ability to shape shared norms and identities.

The Authenticity Deficit: Why State-Directed Narratives Fail

At the heart of the problem lies the Authenticity Deficit. A cultural product’s intrinsic appeal diminishes the moment it is perceived as an instrument of statecraft. Let's take the example of China. China poured billions into Confucius Institutes to promote its language and culture but ended up facing backlash and criticism as propaganda leaving little to none genuine cultural affinity. Yet Chinese apps like Tiktok which were driven by creators got increasingly popular and shaped the global aesthetics in ways Beijing would have never imagined. This proves that in an increasingly globalized world characterized by skepticism, audiences have become adept at discerning agenda and increasingly rejecting narratives that feel manufactured.

One classic example is USSR’s carefully staged ballet tours and Pravda broadcasts which struggled to persuade during the cold war. In contrast, the American Dream took the spotlight and became an aspiration for many across the world without state micromanagement. India faced a similar paradox with  grand campaigns like Incredible India generating headlines but not emotional resonance whereas the Indian Premier League organically captured attention drawing international players and fans alike. Its cultural reach built on entertainment and community has arguably done a better job at brand building than even Rajiv Gandhi’s cricket diplomacy.

South Korea provides a subtler case. While the government supported the early K- wave, it was the unexpected global virality of Squid game, Korean dramas and the oscar winning Parasite that cemented its cultural influence in its truest sense.

The Curator’s Dilemma: South Asia’s Friction and Flow

In South Asia, and especially India, culture is curated through  institutions like ICCR (Indian Council for Cultural Relations), often promoting a polished “Yoga, Ayurveda, Bollywood” package. While these efforts have value, state led narratives frequently struggle against the pull of organic cultural gravity.

Cross-border cultural flows reinforce this point. Whether it be Pakistan’s Coke Studio finding fans in India, Sri Lankan singer Yohani’s viral Manike Mage Hithe, Bangladeshi cinema gaining global acclaim  or Bhutan’s Lunana earning an Oscar nomination, South Asia echoes the historical legacies of folk epistemologies of peace. Traditions that shaped regional identity long before there were “imagined communities”. Syncretic voices like Kabir and Bulleh Shah shaped regional identity and modern writers like Salman Rushdie, Arundhati Roy and Jhumpa Lahiri have challenged the dominant narratives without state support. These examples suggest that building resonant narratives requires a nuanced strategy. Some of my recommendations to achieve the same are as follows.

Firstly, all states need to focus on reducing the bureaucratic friction by being an invisible hand in the marketplace of ideas and art. This can be done by simplifying permissions for international film shoots, streamlining visa process for international artists and in the long run creating a transparent and apolitical grant process. Canada is an excellent example of being a hub of creative collaborations by attracting global productions through single window clearances and tax credits.

Secondly, governments should negotiate media co- production treaties for making it seamless for filmmakers or artists to pool talents and resources. This will manage cross cultural appeal and project influence naturally. We can take the example of New Zealand. It has not only successfully co-produced agreements with Australia and Canada by facilitating technology sharing but also takes frequent advantage of local incentives in partner countries in the form of subsidies and grants.

Last but not the least, it is crucial for South Asian states to establish a Cultural Innovation Fund. This fund should not just support traditional forms of creations but strategically invest in AI generated cultural and creative works which will gain global traction in the coming decades. South Asia with booming artists should take the lead by exploring the creative possibilities.As highlighted by the World Economic Forum’s 2025 report that 6 out of 10 organizations expect AI to transform operations, so governments should focus on upskilling artists for international collaborations. Not to mention that policymakers have to navigate the copyright and authorship landscape while recognising its transformative potential. With creative services expanding to $1.4 trillion in 2022 and beyond, investments in AI driven creativity and innovation will be both an economic and cultural opportunity.

South Asia’s experience makes one point unmistakable that soft power has not lost relevance. It’s centre of gravity has shifted. Influence now emerges from decentralised cultural ecosystems rather than state-orchestrated campaigns but the underlying logic of attraction remains intact. In fact, the rise of creator-driven cultural gravity reinforces why soft power still matters because people trust what feels organic, not what appears engineered. For governments and diplomats in the region, this requires a strategic correction and not abandonment of the concept. This would be the most effective when the state plays an enabling role in making mobility easier, reducing regulatory friction, encouraging co-production and investing in modern creative industries. South Asia already has the content, the audiences and the cross-border appeal. The challenge is institutional and not cultural. South Asia’s influence isn’t waiting to be built, it’s waiting to be better governed.