More ‘mind space' for India in the American imagination
Why is there no 'Schwarzman Scholars' programme for India? Why does a country of 1.4 billion people — an ancient civilisation, a dynamic economy, a nuclear power, and a key player in the Indo-Pacific — still appear marginal in the priorities of elite American institutions? The answer lies not merely in policy lag but in perception, psychology, and deeply embedded narratives that continue to shape the West's engagement with Asia.
The Schwarzman Scholars programme
The 'Schwarzman Scholars' programme, launched in 2016 and based at Beijing's Tsinghua University, was explicitly modelled after the Rhodes Scholarship (founded in 1902). Its mission is ambitious: to cultivate a future generation of global leaders, deeply familiar with China's systems, strategic worldview, and societal aspirations. That no such equivalent programme exists for India is not an accident. It is the culmination of decades of lopsided intellectual investment — one that privileges China as essential, and views India, at best, as peripheral.
This imbalance was presciently explored by Harold R. Isaacs in his seminal work, Scratches on Our Minds: American Images of China and India (1958). Isaacs uncovered the psychological residue — 'scratches', as he termed them — left on American consciousness by media, education, missionary engagement, and diplomatic narratives. China loomed large in this imagination: revolutionary, mystical, dangerous, promising. India, by contrast, was filtered through colonial British lenses: remote, spiritual, chaotic, and, ultimately, less urgent.
Even today, those scratches endure. India is often misunderstood, misrepresented, or, more often, simply missing in the frameworks that shape western elite understanding. The Cold War's bipolar logic left India unmoored in American strategic thinking. China was a site of ideological competition, and later, a partner in global capitalism. India, non-aligned and self-reliant, never fit the template. Its democracy attracted rhetorical admiration, but its strategic ambivalence dampened deeper interest.
This selective seduction continued into the 21st century. China masterfully framed its rise as an opportunity — and the West was psychologically prepared to believe it. Scholars such as Australian sinologist Stephen FitzGerald described in the 1980s how the West 'wanted China to succeed' — economically, politically, even ideologically. China offered a compelling, seductive narrative of transformation: poverty to prosperity, isolation to globalisation, authoritarian control with capitalist efficiency. Western business leaders, academics and policymakers were drawn in. Programmes such as Schwarzman were not just reflections of China's pull —they were symptoms of the West's emotional and intellectual readiness to be seduced.
India never orchestrated such seduction. It emerged from colonialism with a focus on sovereignty and self-reliance. It rebuffed bloc politics, avoided entanglements, and developed slowly and unevenly. Its strengths — pluralistic democracy, entrepreneurial diaspora, and cultural richness — did not easily translate into strategic urgency or narrative coherence for the West. While the Chinese state invested heavily in soft power — through Confucius Institutes, think tanks, cultural exchanges, and university partnerships — India's outreach was modest, sporadic, and often bureaucratically constrained.
The problem with India-focused research
Even within American academia, the difference is stark. China Studies enjoys robust institutional support across top universities. With a few exceptions, India-focused research, by contrast, is fragmented, often subsumed under South Asian or Postcolonial Studies, with an emphasis on religion, anthropology, or classical languages. These are critical fields, but do not capture the lure of a civilisational state and a modern India that is shaping global technology, space innovation, climate policy, and strategic affairs. India appears in headlines, but rarely in syllabi.
The consequences are serious. Future American leaders, whether in diplomacy, business, or policy, are not being trained to understand India in its full complexity. The persistence of reductive frameworks, such as the old hyphenation of 'India-Pakistan', continues to distort strategic thinking. U.S. President Donald Trump's repetitive remarks about mediating between India and Pakistan are not just personal gaffes. They reflect institutional inertia, a failure to update mental maps to match geopolitical reality.
And here lies a paradox: just as India's importance is rising, its visibility in American intellectual and philanthropic circuits remains limited. The absence of a flagship fellowship akin to Schwarzman is both a symbol and a cause of this gap. Such a programme would not just serve India's interests; it would meet a growing demand among global youth for deeper engagement with the world's largest democracy — its challenges, innovations, contradictions, and aspirations.
But for such a fellowship to succeed, India must first invest in the institutional foundation. Tsinghua University, where Schwarzman is housed, is not just a campus. It is a a brand, a node of state-backed ambition with global recognition. India has institutions of excellence — the Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management, and emerging liberal arts universities such as Ashoka and Krea — but none as yet combine academic prestige, international pull, policy connectivity, and philanthropic momentum at the scale required.
This must change. India needs a globally oriented, strategically empowered academic platform that can host and nurture the next generation of world leaders — Indian and foreign — who understand India not just as a subject of study but as a site of leadership. Creating such an institution will require government will, private capital, academic autonomy, and long-term vision.
Narrative matters
India also needs to project its narrative with much more feeling and conviction. The Chinese have always felt they are a 'chosen' people. The world, from Napoleon, has felt the same. India is the Cinderella in this story. Strategic restraint and ambiguity has served Indian diplomacy in many arenas, but silence can be mistaken for absence and risk-aversion for reticence and a lack of confidence. Narrative matters. Global leadership today is as much about shaping perceptions as it is about GDP or military muscle. That means calling out outdated framing, investing in storytelling, and claiming intellectual space with confidence. The refrain of a rising GDP lifting all boats, of International Yoga Days, will not just do. Every few blocks in an American city you will find a yoga studio and an Indian restaurant. But does that change the power scene for India?
Ultimately, the battle for influence is not only fought in the corridors of power or in street corners, but is also shaped in classrooms, fellowships, research centres, and campus conversations. If India wants to be understood on its own terms, and not just as a counterweight to China or a bystander in someone else's story, it must be present in the places where ideas are formed and futures imagined.
The scratches on our minds can be healed, but not with silence. They require vision, voice, and a story compelling enough to inspire the next generation of global leaders. A Schwarzman-style fellowship in India would not just be a corrective. It would be a declaration that India is no longer content to be studied at a distance. It wants to be known, on its own terms.
Nirupama Rao is a former Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to the United States
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Ana Navarro calls on Barack Obama to step out of Netflix mode and help save democracy from Trump
Ana Navarro has a strong message for Barack Obama . On The View , she urged the former president to support democracy . With US President Donald Trump threatening democratic values, Navarro believes that silence is no longer an option. Why is Ana Navarro criticizing Barack Obama? Ana Navarro stated on Friday that she wants Barack Obama to "step up" in the opposition to Donald Trump, as per a report by the daily Beast. Ana Navarro criticizes Barack Obama for focusing on movies and private life while Donald Trump threatens American democracy. The former GOP strategist urged Obama and other former presidents to get off the sidelines and to speak out. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Вот что поза во сне говорит о вашем характере! Удивительные Новости Undo ALSO READ: Taylor Swift has one big condition before marrying Travis Kelce — and it's all about her name On The View, the former Republican strategist and ardent Trump critic declared, "I love that Obama is leading his best life right now." Live Events 'He is content, earning money, producing films, and engaging in a variety of other activities. However, the United States of America is in danger. 'Our democratic values are in danger… But if we are all Americans, and we care about the democratic values that are under threat and under attack by Donald Trump, then we have a duty and a responsibility as citizens to do everything we can,' she stated. Has Barack Obama done enough to push back against President Trump? After former president Barack Obama warned Tuesday in rare public remarks that America was approaching "dangerously close" to autocracy under Trump's administration, the hosts were debating whether Obama has an "obligation" to resist Trump more forcefully. Barack Obama stated during a speech at The Connecticut Forum, "I mean, if you follow regularly what is said by those who are in charge of the federal government right now, there is a weak commitment to…our understanding of how a liberal democracy is supposed to work." Even though the two-term president campaigned with Kamala Harris and frequently attacked Trump on the campaign trail, with little success, Obama did not specifically name Trump on Tuesday, as has become his custom, which led some Democrats to complain that he isn't doing enough to oppose Trump's agenda. Should former Presidents stay silent or speak out? Navarro maintained that he and other presidents should return to the ring to challenge Trump, despite the other View hosts' belief that the president had already fulfilled his duties and should enjoy life as a private citizen. She concluded that all living presidents, including Obama, should step up and say, "Look, we've done the job, and this guy is not doing the job well.' Navarro clarified her point on Friday, that normally, former presidents would keep quiet and not criticize or attack the current president, especially in year one when it was the 'honeymoon period.' But she stated they're not in a honeymoon phase. The situation is dire, and it's also a nightmare for Americans. FAQs Why is Ana Navarro calling out Barack Obama? She believes Obama should be more active in defending democracy against Donald Trump. Has Barack Obama publicly criticized Donald Trump? Yes, but only in veiled terms; he has not openly named him.
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
TMC asks if protest doc is a British national
Kolkata: TMC on Saturday questioned whether Rajat Shubhra Banerjee was a British national and staying in Kolkata with an OCI card. This came on a day when Bengal BJP spokesperson Samik Bhattacharya said that "to the best of my knowledge, he (Banerjee) is not an Indian citizen and therefore the Bengal medical council cannot question him". TMC spokesperson Kunal Ghosh said: "If he is a British citizen and here on an OCI card, then why is he (Banerjee) making political statements? Isn't that ground enough to declare him a persona non grata and throw him out of Bengal? But we are a democracy, we will never ask for it."
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
US moves B-2 stealth bombers to Guam amid escalating Israel-Iran conflict: Report
The United States is moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam, two US officials told Reuters on Saturday, as President Donald Trump weighs whether the United States should take part in Israel's strikes against was unclear whether the bomber deployment is tied to Middle East B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground. That is the weapon that experts say could be used to strike Iran's nuclear program, including The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, declined to disclose any further details. One official said no forward orders had been given yet to move the bombers beyond Guam. They did not say how many B-2 bombers are being Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for and officials are closely watching to see whether the B-2 bombers will move forward to a US-British military base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. Experts say that Diego Garcia is in an ideal position to operate in the Middle United States had B-2 bombers on Diego Garcia up until last month, when they were replaced with B-52 said on Saturday it had killed a veteran Iranian commander during attacks by both sides in the more than week-long air war, while Tehran said it would not negotiate over its nuclear program while under says Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, while Iran says its atomic program is only for peaceful has said he would take up to two weeks to decide whether the United States should enter the conflict on Israel's side, enough time "to see whether or not people come to their senses," he was first to report this week the movement of a large number of tanker aircraft to Europe and other military assets to the Middle East, including the deployment of more fighter aircraft carrier in the Indo-Pacific is also heading to the Middle InMust Watch
