Bollywood: Just How Powerful Is India’s Soft Power?

Ask nearly anybody about India’s image and the person will shoot out short, apt replies: yoga, spirituality, Indian movies, cuisine. It’s all true – but where does Indian soft power work best, how much, and why? Soft power is decidedly more difficult to measure than hard power. 

There are other assessment problems. One is the diaspora. We would like to know, of course, how much India’s soft power reaches non-Indian recipients in foreign countries. Indian movies seem to be quite popular in the United States, for instance. But there are a few million Indians and people of Indian origin living in the country. Could the diaspora factor be distorting the impression of the overall popularity of Indian movies?

Indians Did Not Conquer America

Apart from embarking on research on viewer preferences, one way to look at this issue is to watch the trends and the industry’s strategies. In earlier years, some of the big Hindi films – such as Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham (2001) or Kal Ho Naa Ho (2003) – did have diaspora Indians as the main heroes. This suggested that the diaspora was one of filmmakers’ main targets. Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, by the way, was particularly popular and certainly went beyond diaspora audiences, starting a rising wave of Indian film popularity in some countries (it even went to Cannes). But that was 19 years ago. In the later period, the wave subsided. 

Priyanka Chopra, one of Bollywood’s biggest female stars at present, appeared in the American show Quantico, first aired in 2015. At that time, her appearance was seen by some as a signal of the breakthrough of Indian actors into Hollywood. Chopra subsequently had roles in a remake of Baywatch (2017), A Kid Like Jake (2018), and Isn't It Romantic (2019). But let’s be honest: There was no mass breakthrough of Indian stars in Hollywood; no other stars followed Chopra. Nor did Indian movies and actors did become a part of the mainstream in the West.

Where, therefore, are the countries where the Indian diaspora is undoubtedly small but Indian movies visibly popular? What can be the reasons for this? And are these the same reasons these films are not that attractive for non-Indian Western audiences? 

Seek Money, Even in China

Indian movies are widely watched in many countries: in India’s neighborhood, part of the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and, more recently in China. 

A huge Indian workforce is present in many oil-rich Gulf states, making it harder to make correct assessments. The Indian diaspora, however, is not that big in countries like Egypt or Iran, and in part of Central Asia. Yet in these places Indian movies are reportedly popular. Contemporary Indian blockbusters do not seem to top the charts in countries of the Middle East or Central Asia, however. While this would require a closer look, it is possible that this often-claimed popularity is based on older movies and/or TV viewership. Old Hindi movies, for instance, used to be well-known and watched in the Soviet Union with which non-aligned India had good relations. There is thus a chance that the older generations in the former Soviet space are familiar with these works more than with fresh releases.

Yet, the biggest records of the last years were broken by Indian films in the Chinese market (where Indians are not that numerous). Ticket sales were so huge that they had to have been generated by Chinese viewers. The ground was broken by Dangal. The 2016 film earned more than $290 million abroad, over $193 million of that in China. Then came Secret Superstar, which, like Dangal, was produced by the Bollywood star Aamir Khan (and he played lead roles). It not only grossed even more than Dangal but was the fourth best-earning foreign movie in China in the January-April 2018 period. Ironically, while India-U.S. cooperation is growing and China-U.S. tensions are rising, it is China that is currently offering the biggest market value for Indian filmmakers outside their domestic field. 

A Community of Values or Just Good Marketing Value?

Can one therefore assume that cultural values are behind these changing market values? Indian movies appear to be doing better outside the Western world. While usually not directly conservative, most of the time they do not refer to issues such as, say, homosexuality. Family ties, obedience, and respect for parents are common elements. 

But this explanation, even if useful to some degree, risks a lot of generalizations. In using such terms such as the “West” and “East” and hiding between encompass-all-explain-nothing catchphrases like “cultural differences,” we will fail to explain many specific examples. Can we really assume that the same reasons were behind the popularity of old Bollywood movies in the Soviet world, the recent popularity of Indian romances in some Arab countries, and the current achievements of a few Indian blockbusters in China?

Moreover, there is no way to brand all Indian movies as simply “conservative.” For instance, a majority of Indian romances tell a story of free love while Indian society still mostly follows arranged marriages. These love stories often do not directly criticize arranged marriages: Some are just escapist dramas that seem to take place in a world of their own. They do not tell the viewers what to do in a propagandist way; they are rather fantasies to indulge in, leaving society behind, even if just for a few hours. There is no point in putting such a movie plot on an artificial scale with “conservative” and “progressive” written at each end.

The “traditional values” explanation could perhaps work for Dangal. The movie tells the story of a strict father who puts his two daughters through a strenuous routine to achieve success in their careers – something Chinese viewers would relate to. But this explanation does not bring us far. Dangal is much more about effort and winning: The movie tells us girls can achieve success in life (and in this case in wrestling) like men, and, to the horror of his wife, the main protagonist forsakes the religious traditions of vegetarianism so that his daughters may grow stronger. 

Moreover, before Dangal became the highest-grossing Indian movie in China, that title was claimed by PK in 2015. By Indian standards, PK is a pretty strong attack on religion. Can we risk claiming that this is what made it popular in both India and China, or was it more because it was a comedy of absurd humor, and a work powered by the talent and effort of the main actor, Aamir Khan? So far, a large part of Indian films’ box office in China are in fact his successes. Values and all that apart, Khan simply did good work marketing in the Land of the Dragon.

No U.S. Flag on the Screen, Please

Apart from culture, another aspect may be politics. Indian movies are not politically U.S.-centric. A standard Hollywood film takes place in, well, the United States (even the aliens land there). Quite often their heroes represent American public institutions and the foes come from foreign lands. By the standards of action movies, American viewers are very self-centered and less interested in an East Asian or a South Asian action movie (unless it is an American remake). At the same time we may imagine how the “American heroism” of Hollywood is read politically in Arab countries, Iran, or China.

Bollywood, like other Indian industries, is also quite self-centered, but most of the world will not have a problem with its political background (where there is one – and usually there is none). With Hollywood facing a slight decline in China, the Indian cinema industry may emerge as another important source of large-scale comedies, romances, and action movies (apart from the dominant Chinese domestic industry, of course). 

In many cases style may be more important for viewer preference than culture and politics. And this is what may perhaps explain both the bigger popularity of Indian movies outside the West and the not-so-big popularity in the West. Perhaps solutions such as a slower narratives, less glamor and color bonanza, as well as music may find takers in many countries. The same question of style could also explain why Indian movies are not that game for non-Indian American viewers. But following this trail can lead us to yet another abyss of generalizations: there is no “East” so there is no “Eastern style” either. Once again, we would have to look at the preferences of particular audiences.