162
prime demands and most were leaderless protests. While the monarchies—
rich or poor—survived, the Arab Spring became a significant challenge
for one- party republican regimes. There were regime changes in Tunisia,
Egypt, Libya and Yemen, and some of the rulers were brought down by
protests and others were forced out by external intervention. The reluc-
tance of the rulers to listen to demands for change plunged countries
like Libya, Syria and Yemen into a civil war and sectarian and tribal
violence.
The popular demands for democracy, employment, empowerment and
economic rights are universal, and at least in the initial stages Arab Spring
mostly remained peaceful and inclusive. Citizens belonging to different
religious, ethnic and social groups were protesting against the authoritar-
ian rulers who were indifferent towards popular yearning for change.
Above all, they were not religious or sectarian protests.
Concerning its content and approach, the Arab Spring reflected some
of the core Indian values and principles since the days of its freedom
struggle and should have evoked its support, understanding and empa-
thy. This, however, did not happen. This was primarily because of two
closely linked factors. Philosophically India has eschewed from interfering
in the internal affairs of other countries. While being proud of its democ-
racy and diversity, since the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indian leaders have
avoided a prescriptive approach to the political system of other countries.
Unlike some Western countries, especially the US, democracy promotion
has never been a part of India’s foreign policy agenda. Though, some
Indian leaders showed interests (Mazumdar and Statz 2015 ) in the con-
cept of democracy promotion floated by the US (Akbarzadeh et al. 2012 )
externally-induced regime change has never been India’s option. Thus,
Indian leaders have been reluctant to pass any judgment on or advice to
Arab rulers who were facing popular protests.
Furthermore, India’s prime concern vis-à-vis the Arab Spring protests
was the welfare of its citizens in countries facing protests and unrest. Their
safe evacuation meant that India would not make provocative statements
or remarks which would harm and hamper the process. Hence, a mild
Indian ‘advice’ to Mubarak to listen to the voices of his people had to wait
until the completion of the evacuation. This became prominent towards
the Gulf Arab states which have a sizeable Indian population. While its
travel advisory on Yemen had to wait until July 2015, it was more
circumspect vis-à-vis other countries. In tune with its opposition to foreign
P. R. KUMARASWAMY AND MD. M. QUAMAR