Recently an Australia-based think tank, Lowy Institute’s Asia Power Index 2024 ranked India as 3rd most powerful country in Asia, trailing just behind the USA and China, who were ranked 1st and 2nd most powerful respectively. These rankings come when the world is witnessing multiple conflicts unfold in different regions. Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine, South-China Sea conflict, Taliban in Afghanistan, Anti-Junta Protests in Myanmar etc, are some of the few but pivotal geopolitical events unfolding in India’s neighbourhood. Such indices should be considered critically since they can influence and shape perceptions of global power dynamics. It also influences how countries view themselves and how others view them. However, having said that, limiting a nation’s power and identity to mere metrics is quite a reductionist approach. Ranking India solely on conventional power metrics diminishes its broader contributions to global peace, multilateralism, and moral leadership.
Credibility of Power Indices
The notion of ‘locating a nation’ suggests a geographic understanding of power, but the influence is increasingly dispersed and transcends borders. In an interconnected, globalized world, does the index truly consider a nation’s global reach through digital diplomacy, soft power, or transnational networks? For example, India’s leadership in digital public infrastructure and South-South cooperation may not neatly fit into the index’s traditional metrics of power.
Are the parameters in this index truly valid? If power is relative, can it be accurately ranked? Indices with such parameters are watertight compartments leaving little room for socio-political, historical, and policy differences. The index opines that its purpose is to sharpen the debate on power in Asia. What is the index’s purpose? Is it meant for policymakers, academics, governments, or public reference? Does it reflect a realist, constructivist, or neo-liberal view of power? If intended to guide strategy, how useful is it when it overlooks the historical and geopolitical nuances unique to each country?
Methodological Limitations of Power Indices
Such a methodology or approach has its limitations. For example, diplomacy, cultural influence, and political stability—key aspects of power—are difficult to quantify. Is the Index trying to quantify aspects of power that cannot, and perhaps should not, be reduced to numbers? Moreover, data reliability is also an issue. The index says it relied on publicly available data, but not all countries provide accurate or transparent figures, particularly in areas like military spending, intelligence capabilities, or covert diplomatic operations. Nations may also manipulate or selectively disclose information to project greater power than they possess.
A Western Lens: Does the Index Privilege Certain Powers?
Moving on, when we look at the method of the index from India’s Foreign Policy perspective, it may explicitly privilege the Euro-centric perspective to power, focusing on military alliances, trade agreements, and high-tech capabilities. This is why, India’s emphasis on ‘strategic autonomy’ and its rejection of Cold War-style alliances will not be valued as highly in the Index compared to countries that are part of Western security frameworks like NATO.
Aspects of soft power like cultural diplomacy and historical legacies also went unnoticed in this index. India, with deep historical ties across Asia and Africa, may wield influence that is not captured in traditional power metrics. India’s historical role in shaping decolonization movements, its leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement, and its cultural reach through Bollywood, yoga, and spirituality have not been reflected fully in the index.
Relativity of Power: Rankings May Not Capture Reality
India’s peacebuilding and peace-broking efforts for the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Palestine conflict have not been taken into due consideration in the power index. India is one the rarest nations, to have friendly relations with all the parties involved in the conflict. During the G20 Summit, India invited the African Union and renamed it G20+1, purporting inclusivity and representation of the Global South. It is necessary to observe whether the rankings align with India’s geopolitical priorities, diplomatic missions and recent successes in the South Asian region. How credible are these rankings? Could these rankings and indexes be taken seriously?
It is essential to recognize the weight of various parameters in the index. Does India accord the same level of priority to these parameters when it makes certain foreign policy or strategic decisions? The index overlooks India’s burgeoning healthcare sector and leadership in climate action. India’s shift from non-alignment to multi-alignment emphasizes dialogue, diplomacy, and strategic autonomy. Do such significant shifts influence rankings, or is the index strictly based on ‘alliances’ and ‘hard power’? The index’s overall perception remains outdated and theoretical, failing to address critical areas like conflict resolution, diplomacy, global south representation, and inequality-adjusted human development.
Think tanks, funded by both public and private entities, undertake most research, analysis, policymaking, and agenda-building. They can significantly influence and impact institutional decision-making. However, stakeholders may steer research to promote specific policies or perceptions, which may not benefit all societal groups or countries, leading to biased findings and skewed outcomes in policy recommendations.
Weight of Metrics
Moving onto the rankings; it has eight parameters encapsulated. It assesses Military capability, Future resources, Economic Capability, Diplomatic and Cultural Influence, Defence Networks, Economic Resources, and Resilience. While these parameters measure nation-states’ level of power and its implications in Asia, there are limitations in terms of the comprehensiveness and appropriateness of these indexes. Economic and military capabilities are prioritized, each receiving a weightage of 17.5%, indicating that geopolitical influence is closely tied to economic stability and military prowess. However, the index predominantly adheres to traditional power metrics, overlooking the significance of emerging factors such as diplomacy and soft power.
The index follows the OECD’s methodology for constructing composite indicators. It adopts a distance-to-frontier approach to compare nations, demonstrating their relative strength across various parameters. The ranking framework is limited by its inability to accommodate the policy priorities that differ between states, as policies suitable for one nation may not be applicable to another.
India comes in last on the ‘Regional Alliance Network’ micrometric since India has no alliances. Additionally, they believe that India has not established significant ‘defence partnerships and lack of depth and diversity of defence diplomacy’ in the region. These three observations are personal choices that are entirely dependent on the South Block’s approach to align with its strategic goals in the Indo-Pacific area.
Conclusion
So, these metrics do not take into consideration a country’s foreign policy priorities, socio-political and geographical background, or underlying bias of some of the metrics to which a country ideologically does not subscribe. At face value, this framework might influence an academic or scholars at large in suggesting foreign policy recommendations, which aim at improving our ranking for those metrics, not considering our current situation at home. Not only this index by the Lowy Institute but many such indexes and rankings have a narrow perception while setting benchmarks that complement certain countries but do not resonate with others. If power in IR is indeed relative, then so should the benchmarks and metrics on which the countries are judged. India’s Foreign Policy cannot be designed and envisaged by perceiving it through any international rankings, at least as long as they remain skewed and lopsided. Similarly, strategic choices are much more of a complex ballgame which cannot be just handled by simply improving our position at such indexes. These indexes also subtly reinforce a particular decision which might not be always favourable for a country.
Although the idea is very novel, in the 21st century, Asia is the ‘pivot’ of geopolitics. Hence, such indices influence thought amidst certain limitations that should be studied critically. They simplify complex realities, perpetuate competitive narratives, and prioritise traditional power metrics that fail to account for the diverse and evolving nature of influence in the 21st century.
Ms Gargi Shanbhag is a research assistant at Subhas Chandra Bose Chair on International Relations, Chanakya University.
Professor Dr Chetan B Singai is the Dean of the School of Law, Governance and Public Policy at Chanakya University.