Who Gets to Define India? Power, Perception and the Western Gaze

Tashi Sharma

sharmatashi23@gmail.com

As India rises on the global stage, the battle is no longer only for power, but for the right to define its own story.

A nation can be militarily powerful, economically influential, and diplomatically effective, yet still lose the debate as to who it is. Power does not operate solely through the use of armed forces, economic resources, and diplomatic relations in the early twenty-first century. It operates through newspaper headlines, photographs, films, documentaries and the language used to discuss global affairs. While hard power helps maintain borders, narrative power determines how the rest of the world perceives them. Western institutions have had for decades an unrivalled capacity to tell the story of a country on behalf of the international community. They determine what constitutes progress, legitimacy, reason to be outraged and mere statistics. India, which has become increasingly geopolitically significant, continues to fall victim to the Western perspective of its past.

The issue is not that Western media outlets are critical of India. The press must challenge governments. The problem lies in how criticism turns into a predetermined narrative, simplifying complexities into stereotypes.

The India That Fits the Frame

Western images of India tend to oscillate between two poles. First is the romantic India of yoga, spirituality, palaces, festivities and mysticism. Second is the troubled India of poverty, caste system, pollution, religious clashes and crowded roads. Both these images have their share of truth, but none of them tell the complete story. Modern India combines traditional practices, hi-tech connectivity, inequality, successful space program, conflicts, multinational corporations and hundreds of millions of democratic citizens. But complexity is no good for viral headline. India is depicted by its scars and talked about without mentioning its healing process. When there is poverty in the West, it is considered to be a problem in an already developed country. When it occurs in India, it often becomes its core characteristic. Violence in Europe and in America is usually localised: it is a riot in one city, a hate crime in one state or a failure of one institution. When it occurs in India, it immediately becomes proof of “what India has become.” This is the power of framing. It doesn’t necessarily invent facts. It decides which facts are supposed to represent the whole picture.

The Moon, Mars and the Western Gaze

Following the success of India’s Mars Orbiter Mission in reaching Martian orbit in 2014, The New York Times printed a cartoon depicting an Indian farmer along with his cow knocking on the door of the “space club.” Following criticism from the public, the paper apologized for this cartoon. More than bad editorial taste, the cartoon highlighted the discomfort caused by the presence of a formerly colonized nation within a sphere dominated by the West. An accomplishment by a developing nation could not be left as it is but had to answer a common question, “Why explore space when poverty is present?” This criterion is not used to define Western accomplishments. NASA is not questioned over suspending its efforts until there is no more homelessness in the US. After Chandrayaan-3, Britain’s The Times announced that India had landed on the “dark side of the Moon.” In reality, the spacecraft landed near the lunar south pole on the Moon’s near side. The error may appear minor, but it demonstrates how readily dramatic language can replace scientific precision when reporting India. A mission built upon meticulous calculation deserved coverage grounded in equal accuracy. There is nothing immoral about the scientific projects of Europeans since they also experience unemployment and poverty. Technology is an investment for the West, while for India, it is often portrayed as an indulgence. The Indian space program contributes to meteorology, communications, navigation, agriculture, and disaster management. Chandrayaan and Mangalyaan are not endeavours aimed at India’s escape from its developmental challenges; rather, they are indicators of the technical capability necessary for solving them. However, the image of the farmer, the cow, and the slum persists as being more prevalent internationally, compared to that of the engineer, the entrepreneur, and the scientist.

The Politics of the Adjective

A prejudice can be discovered not in the information provided, but in the adjectives accompanying it. In connection with the Indian general elections held in 2019, TIME Magazine characterized PM Modi as “India’s Divider in Chief.” Many other international publications have frequently used such descriptors as “intolerant,” “authoritarian,” “majoritarian,” and “Hindu nationalist” as frameworks for analyzing Indian politics. The role of governments needs to be questioned, and issues pertaining to civil liberties, religious strife, institutional autonomy and press freedom cannot be ignored. But political journalism turns intellectual when the naming starts. There are millions of people voting in India's elections, which have differences in terms of regions, castes, classes, languages, ages and political experience. Their decision could be based on welfare delivery, infrastructure, security issues, leadership, ideological positions or dissatisfaction with the opposition. Labeling such a massive exercise in democracy in terms of fear, propaganda or religious polarization could mean one thing: Western analysts know Indian voters better than the Indian voters know themselves. Democracy can never be appreciated on the basis that its outcome satisfies the Western taste. An electoral vote in an Indian village is no less intellectually significant than an editorial in London or New York.

One Incident, Two Ways of Speaking

Narrative bias becomes obvious when an identical incident is spoken about in two ways. A national pride in India can easily be referred to as “aggressive nationalism,” but in Western countries, it is more likely to be classified as patriotism. Restrictive measures taken during Indian protests can be easily referred to as authoritarian actions, whereas restrictions on disruptive protests in Western cities are viewed as legal, security and public order measures. The purchase of Russian oil in India raises ethical issues, whereas economic and strategic reasons explain European actions in the sphere of energy. The influence of religion on Indian politics is perceived as contrary to the idea of modern democracy, but the influence of Christian communities in America or the church-state relationship in some European countries is viewed historically. The point is not that India must not be criticized. The point is that identical incidents should be treated in the same way. A rule applied selectively is no longer a rule; it is a preference.

The Bicycle in the Frame

During the recent 2026 BRICS Summit in New Delhi, foreign press agencies opted for photographs of cycles and mopeds being ridden around the enormous summit hoardings. It was not that there was anything wrong with the bicycle itself; it was the editorial decision to repeatedly place it in such a frame that was. From among the infinite photographs taken of Bharat Mandapam, diplomatic talks, advanced infrastructure and international leaders, these editors opted to construct a contrast between India’s international aspirations and a regular citizen riding under them. Without stating India’s poverty overtly, they implicitly reminded the audience of the well-trodden image of a country trying to reach above its station. The visual vocabulary has changed, but the narrative remains familiar: yesterday it was the snake charmer, today it is the cyclist beneath a global summit hoarding. The photo spoke of the summit, while the frame told of the hierarchy.

The Inequality of Indian Suffering

This inequality of representation becomes particularly evident when a crisis emerges. In the second wave of coronavirus infections in India, a country was confronted with a huge human catastrophe. It was necessary to write about overcrowded hospitals, lack of oxygen and management mistakes. However, part of international journalism continued to use pictures of burning pyres for the representation of this problem. Suffering of India was presented to the world as a spectacle. At that time, many other countries have already endured enormous casualties from the virus. These events have been usually depicted through statistical diagrams, views of corridors, portraits of people and memorial acts. India’s losses have been regularly represented with the help of funerary rituals. These facts should be reported. Mismanagement issues require investigations. However, grief must not be treated disrespectfully. There is a line between showing someone’s suffering and enjoying it aesthetically. The choice of picture for illustrating an article might make the audience empathize or feel themselves superior to another society.

Soft Power Is Being Able To Narrate Your Nation’s Story

That is why narrative power is so significant. Hollywood has been creating images of America for years. Even when they are showing political scandals, crime, and wars, the country continues being a main character – complex, strong, and capable of changing things for better. British historical movies converted the history of imperialism into visual beauty. US media outlets have become the sources that created a political language understood all around the world. Universities and think-tanks from the West started ranking democracies, freedoms, and development of other nations. And that is the most powerful form of soft power. It is not only promoting your country but creating the language through which others are evaluated. The greatest success in storytelling is not getting everyone to agree with you. It is getting everyone arguing using your language.

India is blessed with massive potential for soft power – yoga, Ayurveda, Buddhism, Indian movies, literature, food, culture, cricket, its diaspora, democratic size, public digital infrastructure and civilizational history. International Yoga Day around the world highlights how a cultural phenomenon can be turned into a diplomatic resource. The accomplishments of Indians outside their homeland have already challenged the stereotype that India has been merely a beneficiary of Western education and aid. Chandrayaan-3 mission went beyond landing near the Moon’s South Pole. It gave hundreds of millions of people living in the Global South the inspiring picture of science. Other examples of India’s capabilities, such as vaccines production, digital money transactions and disaster relief operations, can serve as a source for shaping global narratives. But accomplishments are not an automatic source of influence. If India creates something but does not tell about it, someone else will interpret its creation.

India Shouldn’t Be Afraid of Criticism

Challenging prejudice doesn’t entail making India out to be perfect. There are major issues in India. Violence between different communities, crimes against women, discrimination on the basis of caste, unemployment, environmental damage and censorship of journalists have to be covered accurately. A nation cannot talk about civilizational pride while being touchy about all the criticism it gets. Not every critical article is anti-India. Not every foreign journalist is working for some conspiracy against the country. But a response to hostile journalism is not submissive journalism. Better journalism will do. India needs more journalists who can report the world from an Indian point of view, foreign publications that have enough knowledge about the region, cultural diplomacy, and people who can tell India’s story without being either inferior or propagandist.

The Question of Winning the Narrative

The issue that lies behind Western media coverage is much deeper than merely the question of whose headlines get precedence. It is about whose narrative has the right to determine the definition of modern India. India as a country with over a billion people cannot be left at the mercy of outsiders when it comes to interpretation of their elections, successes, culture and controversies for the rest of the world.

It may be difficult for India to influence the narratives of every foreign media outlet and it shouldn’t even try. Instead, it has to build its own institutions of global media, improve cultural diplomacy and nurture its journalists who will be able to provide an Indian point of view without being accused of propaganda.