This does not mean there is no African discontent with the burgeoning economic relationship with China. Beijing has been accused of an obsession with resource extraction in Africa. China has also been criticised for dumping its cheap manufactured goods in Africa and destroying local jobs. In implementing its projects, the Chinese state-owned companies bring their own labour and curtail opportunities for local employment.

Despite “losing” some major resource contracts to China, India has consciously avoided many elements of the China model in Africa. It has neither imported Indian labour into Africa nor has it sought to undermine the local industry. It has placed special emphasis on capacity building and human resource development. New Delhi has also focused on the transfer of intermediate technologies and facilitating the development of agriculture and related industries in Africa.

The biggest contrast between the two Asian giants in Africa comes from the character of their respective strategies. China’s engagement is state-driven while the private sector leads India’s. Those who are attracted to the Chinese model have criticised India for the lack of greater governmental initiative.

This criticism ignores the nature of the beast that modern India is. Its engagement with any region in the world today tends to be disaggregated, widely dispersed and less dominated by the government. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Although seemingly less efficient, India’s Africa policy is more broad-based and capable of high endurance. The Indian private sector is also more sensitive to local risks that the state-driven Chinese strategy is not always good at managing.

... contd.