Dual citizenship is partly what did our aggressive neighbor in. Establishing democracies in the Arab states will have positive as well as negative effects. For example..... Radical Islam will undoubtedly flourish in a democratic set-up ( with overwhelming Muslim majority ) when the people are free to chart their own course. This , I'm sure you'd agree; is rather un-desirable. Turkey would be the sole exception.
Its a really confusing to say "radical Islam" will flourish.
You have to define what you are talking about because its used to mean anyone who even mentions the word Muslim.
For example, Turkey's ruling party openly supports a secular state but is still considered "radical Islam" by you post. Infsct, AKP, is not Islamist even by the correct definition of the word.
The main concern is of course that political religious ideological groups would gain power initially because they can use religion to get votes. But if they don't perform, they will loose. Within a span of a year, MB vote share went down from 50% to 25% when the Presidential elections were held. And even in the runoff which was against a Mubarak appointee, it was a close 52% victory. In Libya, the MB counterparts lost badly. And in Tunisia, the Annahada party that has partial MB support has again confirmed that its a secular centre-left coalition and will emerge as a Muslim version of the Christian democrat parties in Europe.
The proper definition of an Islamist would be a group whose agenda is to use Islam as a political tool to establish a governance framework and then implement and impose "their" version of Islam top down. The democratic "political" versions are MB or Jamaat Islami in Pakistan for example. Turkey has no such counterpart. Within this is a minority that are the non-violent revolutionary groups are Hizb-ut-Tahrir type groups that oppose democracy and want to overthrow muslim govt. And then within this minority is another minority that violent wants to overthrow Muslim govt.s like TTP in Pakistan and Jihadist groups in Egypt, and Algeria.
India should not be afraid to engage the "political" counterparts while being against the revolutionary and ofcourse completely against the third variant. I personally would prefer to have no party professing a political religious ideology, wether Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Jew, but if the public votes them to power, then there is no point in not engaging them as long as they adhere to some basic principles. For example, we have Christian democrats in Europe, the BJP or Shiv Sena in India and the Shaas party in Israel all of whom have a political religious ideology which is an important component. But on an international level, govt. will engage whichever party is in power regardless. There is no reason why we in India should adopt the same approach.
However, I think one thing we should be clear, is that we are not going to export democracy. IF an Arab country wants our help in establishing democracy we will actively help them out like we saw rcently in Egypt when our CEC went there. But we will not call for democratic reforms like the West does because we should maintain the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.
