Indian restaurants in London are dominated by North Indian cuisine. In fact, if you want to find South Indian cuisine, you need to search for it separately.

This is just one example of how certain regions of a country dominate the so-called brand of a country. North India has traditionally been the center of power in India, and in the case of the United Kingdom, the same could be said of England, if not London alone.

The British brand largely revolves around a specific English way of life, and everything else is seen as quirks of England rather than its focus. Even then, the term English is mostly understood as the culture of London, since London is the city that gets the most exposure out of all British cities. London is, according to various sources, one of the top five most filmed cities of the world. Think of major shows like Sherlock and Luther and how they’re based in London. These are the quintessential British TV shows of today. Shows like the critically acclaimed Scottish sitcom Still Game are unheard of.

Yet the shows that become global phenomena aren’t necessarily the ones that are the best. They’re just the ones produced in regions where power is situated. This allows cities like London, Mumbai or even Karachi and Lahore to define the identity of a country. It’s what allows regions in a country to build even more soft power.

On the other hand, countries don’t have complete creative control over how their brand in perceived among the international community. There are always other forces at play. Pakistani restaurants in London, for instance, brand themselves as Indian restaurants not only because the food is almost the same, but also because India is a more recognizable, and perhaps less hostile, brand than Pakistan is. This is probably due to the portrayal of Pakistan as a slightly better Afghanistan in US American media.

Other media play a role in this as well. BBC News is one of the most popular news websites in the world. But more importantly, it’s also one of the most reputable. Yet BBC plays a part in building an image of Britain and its institutions and, perhaps more importantly, framing issues in the context of the UK. It helps legitimize the interests and actions of the UK. It builds a picture of a UK that is complex and multifaceted. The more one knows about a country or a region, the more sophisticated that place becomes. While the BBC and CNN are able to do this because of a monopoly on media, India and China, for instance, will have to settle with their global brands being molded by the US American or British media.

There is a clamor in Pakistan whenever Pakistan is mentioned in an American or British TV show. It helps the brand. For a brief moment, people feel like they’re relevant — that is, before they must settle once more for identifying with another white American family. For example, there was recently an episode of Homeland that was based in Islamabad, Pakistan. It was infuriating because the actual Islamabad looks nothing like how it was portrayed in the show. However, US American media has the power to broadcast an image of Pakistan that caters to USA interests while Pakistani media can do very little to counter it.

In the end, we have some regions with too much power over how different cultures are perceived. US American and British media as a whole define other cultures while regions within the USA or Britain, like New York or London, vie for what so-called US American or British culture is. What we’re left with is a sophisticated and complex idea of what makes a New Yorker, while India, or Mumbai, is left with trying to convince the world that Bollywood is not outlandish or tacky. The choice then becomes to either let the brand die and not stay relevant or let it be bastardized by whomever has the power to do so.