10.57647/ijps.2025.1502.12

The Islamic Republic of Iran's Cultural Diplomacy Action in India with the Application of Civilizational-Normative Principles

Show Details XML pdf
  • Seyed Javad Ahmadi*1,
  • Garineh Keshishyan Siraki1,
  1. Department of Political Science & International Relations, ST. C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2025-03-28

Revised: 2025-04-16

Accepted: 2025-06-12

Published in Issue 2025-07-05

Copyright (c) 2025 Seyed Javad Ahmadi, Garineh Keshishyan Siraki (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Ahmadi, S. J., & Keshishyan Siraki, G. (2025). The Islamic Republic of Iran’s Cultural Diplomacy Action in India with the Application of Civilizational-Normative Principles. International Journal of Political Science, 15(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.57647/ijps.2025.1502.12
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

pdf views: 5

Abstract

Cultural diplomacy in this world of modern nation-states, is one of the practical tools for developing diplomatic relations through the lens of culture, art, and civilization-building components. Iran and India, as two states with common racial, historical, civilizational, and identity roots, have not achieved an appropriate level of relationship in the last few centuries. This applied research, using a mixed method (quantitative and qualitative) and documentary studies, seeks to find the main question of the researcher: is there a connection between the civilizational-normative foundations and the cultural diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in India? What components and tools are available to implement this relationship? The research hypothesis is that there is a relational interaction between civilizational-normative foundations and cultural diplomacy and that Iran also possesses tools and components such as several thousand-year-old shared relationships and identity, civilizational similarities in Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa with the burnt city of Zabul, a common social structure (four social classes), and recent components such as Persian language and literature, common scientific, literary, and cultural figures, architecture, Muslim society, and the Persian and Iranian diaspora in India. This research has analyzed the subject from the perspective of constructivism theory.

Keywords

  • Cultural Diplomacy, Civilizational, Normative, Cultural Relations, India
pdf

References

  1. Adami A, Moradi A. The structuralism of persistent violence and the mutual consistency between the international system and Salafi extremism. International Relations Studies. 2017;2:1–28.
  2. Agha Mohammadi I. Analytical framework of structure-agent in Iran’s foreign policy. Research Journal of Political Sciences. 2011;6:7–40.
  3. Ahmadi SJ, et al. Diaspora; component and tool of cultural diplomacy. International Studies. 2024;21:311–329. doi:10.22034/ISJ.2024405598.2036.
  4. Ahmadi SJ. Political relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and India: opportunities and challenges. Specialized Quarterly Journal of Political Sciences. 2023;19:9–28.
  5. Ahmadi Dehka R. The principles of cultural diplomacy and its place in the foreign policy of countries. Tehran: Adiban Rooz; 2018.
  6. Alkatheeri AR, Khan M. A perspective on Saudi soft power and cultural diplomacy. Global Social Sciences Review. 2019;IV:20–26.
  7. Ang I, Isar YR, Mar P. Cultural diplomacy: beyond the national interest? International Journal of Cultural Policy. 2015;21:365–381. doi:10.1080/10286632.2015.1042474.
  8. Ashuri D. Political Science Journal. Tehran: Morvarid; 2015. p.169–171.
  9. Bajenaru IR. Bangtan Boys (BTS)—part of South Korea’s cultural diplomacy and soft power strategy. Pol Sci Int Rel Bucharest. 2022;XIX:156–180.
  10. Baylis J, Smith S, Owens P. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
  11. Becard DSR, Menechelli Filho P. Chinese cultural diplomacy: instruments in China’s strategy for international insertion in the 21st century. Rev Bras Polit Int. 2019;62:1–20. doi:10.1590/0034-7329201900105.
  12. Bell EC, Kennan MA. The library as soft power actor: a review. IFLA Journal. 2022;48:6. doi:10.1177/0340035221105411.
  13. Cooper AF, Heine J, Thakur R. Introduction: the challenges of 21st century diplomacy. In: The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p.1–38. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199588862.013.0001.
  14. Cull NJ. From soft power to reputational security: rethinking public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy for a dangerous age. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2022;18:18–21. doi:10.1057/s41254-021-00236-0.
  15. Dabiri MR. Applied diplomacy and diplomatic procedures. Tehran: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Publications; 2005.
  16. Dubinsky Y. The Olympic Games, nation branding, and public diplomacy in a post-pandemic world: reflections on Tokyo 2020 and beyond. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2022;18:1–16. doi:10.1057/s41254-021-00255-x.
  17. Emsaki HR. Cultural relations between Iran and India from ancient times to the present. In: Conference of the Association for the Promotion of Persian Language and Literature of Iran; Yazd; 2014. p.9.
  18. Filipec O. Hybrid warfare: between realism, liberalism and constructivism. Central European Journal. 2020;1:51–70.
  19. Ghavam SAAA. Principles of foreign policy and international politics. Tehran: Samt; 2009. p.217–218.
  20. Ghorbani Golshanabad M, Mohammadi M. Components of cultural diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Quarterly Journal of Islamic Revolution Studies. 2017;14:27–44.
  21. Gil J. China’s cultural projection: a discussion of the Confucius Institutes. China: An International Journal. 2015;13:200–226.
  22. Goff PM. Cultural diplomacy. In: The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p.1–19. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199588862.013.0024.
  23. Haghighi R. The culture of diplomacy in the mirror of policies and cultural diplomacy of the European Union towards the Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran: Al-Hoda; 2007.
  24. Hartig F. How China understands public diplomacy: the importance of national image for national interests. International Studies. 2016;18:655–680.
  25. Hersij H, Taviserkani M. The effect of Iranian identity-building components on the soft power of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Cultural Research of Iran. 2010;3:151–180.
  26. Heydari A, Ghorbani Sheikh Neshin A. Analysis of Iran-India relations based on constructivist theory: a look at the foreign policy approach of the Rouhani and Modi governments. Foreign Policy Quarterly. 2014;36:47–74.
  27. Jung H. The evolution of social constructivism in political science: past to present. SAGE Open. 2019;9. doi:10.1177/2158244019832703.
  28. Lombardo E. Social constructivism in European theories: gender and intersectionality perspectives. 2016. doi:10.2307/j.ctvdf0cv9.9.
  29. Luke C, Kersel MM. U.S. cultural diplomacy and archaeology: soft power hard heritage. Future Anterior. 2016;13.
  30. Price RM, Reus-Smit C. Dangerous liaisons? Critical international theory and constructivism. European Journal of International Relations. 1998;4:256–261.
  31. Reshadat Jo H, Abbas Rashidi M. The role of media in cultural diplomacy from the point of view of professors in the field of communication, cultural affairs management and political science of Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Unit. Cultural Management Magazine. 2012;6:1–22.
  32. Saifi AA, Ellepour M. The place of cultural diplomacy in India’s foreign policy. Bi-Quarterly Journal of Subcontinental Studies. 2019;12:109–126.
  33. Salehi Amiri SR, Mohammadi S. Cultural diplomacy. Tehran: Qoqnous; 2010.
  34. Simbar R, Moghimi AA. National interests and indicators of cultural diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. World Politics. 2015;4:7–38.
  35. Smith Giles S. Transatlantic cultural relations, soft power, and the role of US cultural diplomacy in Europe. European Foreign Affairs Review. 2019;1–20.
  36. Thussu DK. Globalization of the Chinese media: the global context. In: China’s media go global. London: Routledge; 2018. p.108.
  37. Topic M, Sciortino C. Cultural diplomacy and cultural imperialism: a framework for the analysis. In: European perspectives. Frankfurt: Peter Lang; 2012. p.9–49.
  38. Zaharna RS, Arsenault A, Fisher A. Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy: the connective mind shift. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013.
  39. Zamorano MM. Reframing cultural diplomacy: the instrumentalization of culture under the soft power theory. Culture Unbound. 2016:166–186.