In the neo-Western narrative, India is playing catch-up with China in the vast African continent — the repository of fabulous mineral wealth (gold, diamond, coal, bauxite, cobalt — you name it, besides petroleum) with the potential of growing economically at a faster pace than any other continent, although poverty is pervasive. This is at best a partial appreciation. While not wholly incorrect, it misses the nuances of India’s terms with Africa as a whole, both past and present.

As India rises economically, it would naturally seek to buy from and sell to all regions (including Africa), and expand mutual investment ties. This is non-prejudicial logic. But it does not hurt to keep perspective. The United States and some major European nations have deeper — and older — commercial and economic interests in Africa than any other country. Indeed, this is why they move with alacrity when a political crisis looms in that continent and try to influence the outcome. Thus, when India shows initiative to partner Africa in modern sectors — as the just-ended second Africa-India forum summit in Addis Ababa, where Prime Minister Manmohan Singh elaborated India’s message, demonstrates — it will be only one of several players, and way behind most (including China) on factors like trade and investment. But so huge is Africa — 53 countries, a combined population of around 1.5 billion, rapidly urbanising — everyone has the chance to earn money and goodwill. It will really turn on what the Africans themselves want and think of their interlocutors. For India, much will depend on how it conducts its journey in relation to the Americans, the Europeans or the Chinese. It has some advantages. Its outlook and attitude has not been colonial and it partnered many African nations in their search for political freedom. Its specialists have proven expertise in key modern sectors and get on well with Africans. The knowledge of English — a language common in most of Africa — also helps.
It is plain to see that India arrived on the scene when it could. The invoking of rivalry with China is, therefore, an ahistorical construct. Fifteen years ago, India could not have offered Africa what it can today. In Addis Ababa, Dr Singh made official a $5 billion line of credit for three years for development projects and $300 million for an Ethiopia-Djibouti railway line. The mantra was “capacity-building” in Africa, a key element of nation-building, but without political strings as is sometimes the case with US attempts at democracy-building in sundry regions. It is also distinct from China’s focus on cornering mineral extraction rights. At the first summit in 2008, India had offered $5.4 billion for regional integration through infrastructure development.
It is pertinent to recall that in all corners of sub-Saharan Africa, Indians — for the past three or four generations — have been known as “teachers” and held in high esteem, including in Ethiopia which Dr Singh has just visited. Building capacity for civil servants and different branches of the infrastructure industry that are coming up in Africa, not to mention in information technology, agriculture, agro-industry, rural handicrafts and marine products, is the present-day avatar of “teaching”. The recent Indian thrust in Africa has a prologue, which goes beyond Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa. In the past couple of decades, Indians have done multi-sector work — not least in pharmaceuticals — that has been noticed in southern Africa, mainly in the oil sector but also transportation in West Africa (Nigeria), and trade and commerce in East Africa. It would be great if Indian cinema throws in its lot with Africa and begins location shootings there. Anyone who has set foot in Africa, or read Winston Churchill’s accounts, knows of its glorious beauty.