India Egypt: a not so frail distance relationships

When the moniker ”Pan-Arabism” with its sub specie ”Pan-Arabic revolts” stirs the media
highway and worrie so many, India and Egypt seem arrested by their own problem. While the
old Pharaoh’s country is experiencing massive regional riots with a young heavy component
and with a still unknown result, India is witnessing a dual blend of scarcity and protests
against corruption. As for the Party of Congress with its rulers- the Ghandi family, and the
Manmohan Singh Government, they try to minimise the damages within their own ranks
facing the posibillity of losing the state ellection in the near future (2011) and the grips of
power in 2014 national elections. In both cases Der Primat der Innenpolitk might have serious
consequences on the international theatre. A Muslim anti-Israel biased Egypt and a BJP ruled
India are the ingredients of unrest in the entire Greater Middle East. Most of us look to the
political establishment neglecting the interplay between diplomacy and economy. So the
analysis will follow two levels of interpretation.
A. Egypt and India or solidarity in non-interference
Founding member of the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) , both Egypt and India through
the charismatic and cardinal voices of Nasser and Jawaharlal Nehru tried to push a developing
world syndicalisme as a check and balance against the bipolar hegemony of Washington and
Kremlin. India’s bias in favour of Arab cause and critics of Israeli-American way of action
gave place in the post 1991 period to a more nuaced position regarding the Muslim world.
On one hand there is the BJP policy, risen as a national alternative to Congress which
branded on pitting Hindu sentiment against Muslim. During Vajpaee and BJP rulling India
had a war with Pakistan , conducted a nuclear experiment and antagonized inter-confessional
Hindu-Muslim relations (the Gujarat massacre from 2002). On the other hand there is the
Congress which aims at dealing with moderate regimes and involves the country in a
reconstruction Afghanistan diplomacy. Trying to push as many advantages as possible from
its Look West policy (including here relations with EU, USA and Russia) India wasn’t very
successful in convincing the great powers to be more critical against Pakistan.
Itself a democracy, and the most populated too, India doesn’t tremble with a Wilsonian
mission of universal liberal peace. Sure, it wants to be surrounded by fellow republics but
shows reluctance in expanding its own political model. In a piece published on the 26 May
2006 in The Press Trust of India Limited, Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran said that "we
believe that India as a mature and stable democracy, has an increasingly important
economic powerhouse and it will have the capabilities to contribute to a more harmonized
and increasingly global and multi-polar world. Therefore we see our emergence as a major
and positive development in international business."
Some journalists disagree with this opinion considering that India has in fact tried to export
democracy but often fail- the example given is the 2006 Nepalese king departure followed by
a short Weimerian style turmoil ended in Maoist uprising. Others, non-Indian South Asia
voices consider that India does quite the opposite: by searching for regional hegemony it
actually hampers democratic evolution in surrounding countries.
In response to the current affairs of Egypt The Hindu published an article on the February 1
2011 were illustrated the dual standard of ’wait and see’ stance dubbled by slightly supporting
the will of the Egyptian people. The prudent-optimistic conclusion was that India should
welcome democratic tidal waves when they happen but without being involved in an effort to
nurture them: „As a general rule, it is advisable in diplomacy to be cautious in responding
to events in foreign countries, especially when they occur in faraway places about which we
may not be fully in the picture or where we may not have too many interests. There are
occasions, however, when too much caution would not be necessary and might not be
helpful in safeguarding and furthering our current and future interests. Silence might
indicate not just caution but lack of clarity in our thinking […]We ought to have expressed
sympathy and support for the people of Egypt in what is undoubtedly their great moment in
history[…] India is not, and must not be, in the business of promoting democracy abroad,
either by itself or in association with anyone else. We have rightly taken the position that it
is not up to us to tell others what type of government they should have; we will deal with
whichever government is in power and is able to take decisions on behalf of their people,
decisions that the government concerned is able to implement ” (Chinmaya R. Gharekhan,
Egypt: How India should respond, The Hindu, februarie 1, 2011,
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article1143814.ece)
If one looks on the site of India’s Embassy to Cairo one could see only a laconical statement
expressing moderate feelings and pragmatism in a protocolar way:
<Ministry of External Affairs Statement on Egypt:
”We welcome the decision of President Mubarak to step down in deference to the
wishes of the people of Egypt. We also welcome the commitment of the Supreme Council of
the Armed Forces to ensure a peaceful transition of power in a time bound manner to
establish an open and democratic framework of governance. We are proud of our
traditionally close relations with the people of Egypt and wish them peace, stability and
prosperity.”New Delhi February 11, 2011> (http://www.indembcairo.com/Web
%20Pages/Archives%20Eng%202011/EAM%20statement.htm)
Nonetheless India is not up to the end immune to the Northern African problems and a sense
of global imitation favored by media is emerging. Confessing his inability to tackle corruption
Manmohan Singh’s February 5 speech warned against an Egypt style mass rebellion if the
situation isn’t handled properly. (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_bjp-says-pm-has-admitted-
failure-warns-of-egypt-like-situation_1503690 )

B. India and Egypt: economy over politics

The media culture focused on singular personalities often gives the illusion the men in charge
do control the course ov events. But the mechanics of history is many times prepared in the
engine of social and economic realm, politics playing the role not of an actor but of a re-actor,
alaways adapting to what just has happened.
In a 2009 World Bank study MENA (Middle East and North Africa) countries were
considered among the fastest growing economies in the world, with an average of 4,5 up to
6%/year; a rather oil centered economy and shallow diversity but with a 13% rate of
uneployment. India and China are interested in MENA for the raw materials, and less for
other commodities. Quite the opposite: for the two Asian giants MENA countries along with
other African nations serve as market for cheap products and textiles. By flooding those
markets Chindia inhibits the local production and keep the North African and Middle East
nations in scarcity. Although MENA business rate with China and India was considered still
low in the second part of the decade (8.2% in 2006) the numbers are growing fast. Both India
and China have quite serious stakes in Northern Africa, even if from strictly amoral
pragmatic reasons= securing their investments. One of the latest push throughs was in late
December 2010 when the Indian Aditya Birla Group, a conglomerate cement focused
corporation which bought 12 percent of the Egyptian Alexandria Carbon Black Co (ACBC)
from the Arab Petroleum Investments Corp (Apicorp).
(http://thedailynewsegypt.com/index.php). Other Indian firm investing in Egypt are Wipro
and Satyam Computers, Kirloskar- diesel engines, Tata Motors, M&M, Ashok Leyland.
Summarizing all said above one can conclude that Egypt and Northern Africa may be far
away from India but not far enough. In a globalized world were opportunities are the most
valued mineral distances is a function of utility .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/248366