India has a long history of supporting indigenous movements in Africa. But competition with China seems to be pushing it in another direction towards "national self-interest" rather than solidarity.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG13Df03.html -raghu. --------------------------snip India's strategy and strengths in Africa are quite different from China's. China concentrates on resource-based investment, while India has focused on capacity-building. Indian investments are largely private-sector, riding on the back of the lines of credit given by the Indian government, says Indrani Bagchi in The Times of India. According to Center for Foreign Relations sub-Saharan expert Karen Monaghan, "Indian companies are much more integrated into African society and the African economy." They hire locally and emphasize training Africans on how to maintain and repair the plants they build. Since Indian investments are generally more equitable for the locals, locals have a greater stake in Indian projects. In contrast, China has adopted a neo-imperialist strategy in Africa, using mercantile economic policies focused on resource extraction. Its proximity to corrupt and unpopular leaders in the continent could compromise its long-term objectives in Africa. China is also unpopular with many grassroots Africans, as evident from the increasing attacks its workers and immigrants have faced in countries such as Zambia. The Chinese are not the only foreigners exploiting raw materials in Zambia, but they are the ones who have aroused the greatest hostility - and been attacked - because of fears that the 30,000 Chinese immigrants in the capital Lusaka are stealing badly needed jobs. India's strength lies in public goodwill, China's in its deep pockets, which it has dipped into often to swing deals in its favor. For instance, in Angola, India had almost closed a deal with Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell to purchase a 50% share in an oil-exploration project and offered $200 million in aid. But China managed to swing the deal in its favor by offering Angola $2.3 billion for aid. Impressed by China's successes in Africa, India appears to be trying to replicate the aid-for-oil strategy. In West Africa, India has offered up to $1 billion toward power or infrastructure projects in exchange for oil-exploration rights and supplies. In 2005, Mittal Steel and ONGC announced an investment of $6 billion to establish a refinery, power plant and railway lines in Nigeria through a joint-venture company, ONGC-Mittal Energy Ltd (OMEL). Under the mega-deal between ONGC and the Nigerian government, OMEL would create the infrastructure, while Nigeria would give it oil blocks. "The formation of the ONGC-Mittal joint venture and its infrastructure project in Nigeria are wholly in keeping with the modus operandi of cash-rich Chinese companies," wrote Sushant K Singh in a recent Chatham House paper titled "India and West Africa: A Burgeoning Relationship". The OMEL deal "is seen as one of the first examples of India's new approach in West Africa". Indian analysts warn that by adopting China's strategy, India will lose public goodwill. "If India wants to avoid the charges of 'neo-imperialism' that have been directed against China, it needs to develop a policy of sustainable partnership with Africa," strategic-affairs analyst Raja Mohan wrote the Indian Express. "It must offer a radically different model of aid and economic cooperation that focuses on capacity-building and technology and skill transfer to Africa." For now, China has the advantage in its match with India on the African court. China's deep pockets are determining the deals in Africa today. Whether India will go the Chinese way in its Africa adventure remains to be seen. The e-network initiative inaugurated last week signals that, for now, India favors its people-centric approach.
