India doesn't need advice from others in responding to Egypt

Criticism of India’s perceived reluctance to endorse the democratic urgings surfacing in many Arab countries is misplaced. The Indian media has, of course, covered the upsurge in Egypt very extensively, to the point that outside observers may conclude that our public had deep interest in Egyptian affairs and great affinity with its people. Both conclusions would be erroneous, as post Nasser Egypt has found negligible space in Indian political, press and public concerns.

Our relationship with Egypt since President Sadat’s advent, when the country moved into the US camp and became a lynchpin of its West Asian policy of preventing any large scale Arab-Israeli war, has lacked political substance. Though of late our trade and investment relationship with Egypt had begun to expand, economic ties too have been deficient when compared to flourishing trade contacts between India and the Gulf countries and our enormous expatriate presence there.

Some quarters here think that as a democratic country India should be more vocal in supporting the surge of democratic aspirations in the Arab street. It is argued that we should not be squeamish about “interference” in the internal affairs of other countries, and that boldness in adopting a position in favour of spread of democracy world-wide behoves a country like India that seeks a global role. If are to be taken seriously by the world, we have to take our own international responsibility as a democratic country more seriously, we are told.

The expansive coverage of developments in Egypt in India can be explained in part as a spill over effect of the voluminous writing and commentary in the western media on the unfolding events in a region that is geo-politically of cardinal importance for its energy resources, Israel’s security and spread of dangerous undercurrents of Islamic radicalism there.

Those who believe that democratic states behave moderately have looked to a democratic transition in Arab countries to stabilize West Asia, resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and usher in economic growth and prosperity. In that context the resistance to autocrat rule sweeping the Arab world is generating exciting and panoramic coverage. The Indian media has been swept by this tide, without any previous display of such interest in democratic change in other countries, as, for example, when coloured revolutions scoured the erstwhile Soviet space.

In reality, democratic change in Egypt affects us little. It was not the autocratic Egyptian regime under Mubarak that accounted for indifferent ties with India. President Nasser, no less an autocrat, drew the country close to us. Egypt’s ties with the US was the determining factor in both cases. Change in Tunisia, Yemen, Libya or Bahrain, likewise, will impact us little. The ties of these countries with india will depend not on the democratic factor but what the two sides can concretely put into the relationship. The Islamic factor, Pakistan’s negative role, the Kashmir issue etc will not disappear as obstacles.

Take Turkey’s case. As a staunchly secular state with a democracy subject to military oversight Turkey’s pro-Pakistan leanings have been problematic for our bilateral relationship. With the blossoming of democracy there within a more Islamic dispensation, our ties have not only not improved, the Pakistani factor has become more troublesome.

It is too early to concude that the uprising in these Islamic countries will usher in veritable democratic change notably marked by pluralism, secularism and human freedoms. The current unrest purportedly led by face-book activists belonging to the middle class is being construed as a west-leaning phenomenon and as an acceptance of western liberal values.

This obscures the reality of historical tensions in the region arising from Israeli policies, the unremitting support Israel gets from the US, the energy interests of the West, its perceived anti-islamic posture as demonstrated by the combat against international terrorism ascribed mainly to Islamic groups, not to mention the general dis-satisfaction with the western dominated international system.

All this will not materially change whatever the rhetoric, and this is where the disconnect is between US support for democratic change in the region and the compulsions of its interests and commitments there. An elegant, reaching-out speech or two by President Obama is not going to change some fundamental realities. The pro-western autocrat Arab regimes batted for western interests even as they promoted their own at the cost of the people. The new, more people oriented regimes may prove more difficult to manipulate.

Those in India who deprecate our timidity in politically backing democratic change in West Asia are echoing muted disapproval in western circles of the low profile we have maintained on the subject. After the India-US nuclear deal, the US freely emphasizes the common values that unite us to the West, with the expectation that we would actively join it in speading these values globally. But was the India-US nuclear deal that has transformed the bilateral relationship a strategic rapprochement or one of values? Our values have remained democratic, pluralist and secular for over six decades; the nuclear deal came about in 2005. The issue in fact is not common values but their application to particular situations in conducting foreign policy. The US is selective in application, making compromises where its larger interests dictate this. India need not therefore unthinkingly join in sloganeering for democratic change in areas sensitive for its diplomacy.

In his address to the Indian parliament in November last year President Obama’s bluntly noted India’s shyness in speaking out on human rights issues, and mentioned specifically Myanmar for suppression of democracy. He sought to discredit the argument that speaking up for people’s rights in other countries constituted interference in their internal affairs. Some had viewed his remarks as a veiled signal to India that its candidature for permanent membership of the Security Council would be evaluated in the light of the public solidarity it showed with the West on such issues. The problem with the US is that instead of allowing a natural collaboration arise from an affinity of thinking, it must lecture or hector others to subscribe to its activist approach.

With the rise of authoritarian China in mind and growing concerns about its future policies US opinion makers may be stressing increasingly of late the element of shared democratic values with us. In their eyes, the reversal of authoritarian trends in Russia would be a great gain for global democracy. India is seen as a country that can decisively retain the balance in favour of a liberal world order based on democracy and pluralism in the years ahead in conjunction with the West. Not surprisingly, both China and Russia have expressed wariness about the street revolt in the Arab world. China has reportedly blanked out news abut the Egyptian developments in its media. Russia has voiced misgivings about them.

The active promotion of democracy is not simply preaching the good, it is primarily power play. We have to play this game with restraint and in the light of our own judgments. We don’t have to prove ourselves or win accolades from others. The Prime Minister is right in welcoming the dawn of democracy everywhere if concerned countries want to move toward democratization, but without India seeking to advise them.

The writer is a former Foreign Secretary