The Eisenhower Administration and Public Diplomacy in India
An Ambivalent Engagement, 1953–1960
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12257596 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sarah E Graham (0000-0003-1271-2489, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 260-284 |
| Publication date | 2014-04-03 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Diplomacy and Statecraft (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0959-2296 • E-ISSN: 1557-301X |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/09592296.2014.907065 |
| OpenAlex | W1986187789 |
| Language | EN |
The United States–India relationship was fraught with misapprehension and ideological disagreement during the 1950s. Public diplomacy provides a valuable context for examining these dynamics. This analysis assesses the planning, deployment, and reception of American public diplomacy to India under President Dwight Eisenhower, a period encompassing Washington’s 1954 alliance with Pakistan and economic aid to India in 1957–1958. Public diplomacy reflects the Administration’s difficulty in clarifying its interests in India. The rhetorical and moralising approach of India’s leadership, and their prominence in the global non-aligned movement, contributed greatly to this ambivalence. Public diplomacy planning highlights Washington’s difficulties in confronting India’s identity in world politics; it struggled to craft messages on racial attitudes, consumerism, and Communism, whilst Soviet public diplomacy gave strong competition throughout the period. At the same time, several aspects of American public diplomacy resonated with Indian audiences, indicating that there was the possibility of a closer American relationship with India had Washington taken a different high policy approach to the region
Administration (probate law · Alliance · Communism · Context (archaeology · Diplomacy · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Public Diplomacy · Rhetorical question · Sociology · History · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Military History and Strategy · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East · Public Administration
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |