How the Cairo Fire of 1952 tested young India’s cautious foreign policy

On the morning of January 26, 1952, RN Barrot was resting at Shepheard’s Hotel, preparing to fly back to Bombay. The Indian businessman, who was the managing partner of Bombay Cotton Export-Import Co and managing director of Karachi Cotton Corporation Ltd, had been in Egypt to purchase cotton from the Alexandria market. What should have been an uneventful end to a routine business trip turned into a nightmare.

Riots erupted in Cairo after British troops killed 56 Egyptian policemen in Ismailia, in the occupation zone around the Suez Canal. Enraged crowds targeted British-owned establishments, including the British Turf Club, British Council offices, cinemas, bars, wine shops, car showrooms, garages and hotels.

Barrot had the misfortune of staying at a British-owned property. Mobs set Shepheard’s Hotel ablaze and he later described his escape as a “miracle”.

In a letter to India’s Ministry of External Affairs in April, he wrote: “In such a panicky condition, I was forced to go out of the hotel by leaving all my belongings in room no. 129.” He added that there was no police or military protection for those fleeing the violence and estimated his losses at 2,000 Egyptian pounds.

Barrot escaped the epicentre of the violence in a taxi and survived largely because of his brown skin as the rioters were targeting those of clearly European appearance.

He was one of three Indian nationals who suffered losses during the days-long unrest in the Egyptian capital. Around 80 people, mostly British, were killed in what came to be known as the “Cairo Fire” or “Black Saturday”, events blamed on a range of groups.

In a note to the Ministry of External Affairs, the Indian Embassy in Cairo reported: “The Socialists, the [Muslim] Brotherhood and some of the disgruntled policemen took part and it is said that taxis carried petrol to various parts of the town for use as fuel. The British and the Americans say that the Rumanian Legation was unusually active that day and the Russians, acting through the Legation, had a hand in the riots.”

The embassy also mentioned reports that “Coca-Cola bottles, filled with powder, believed to be calcium powder, were thrown into the fires”.

Ultimately, the embassy held the Egyptian authorities responsible. “In our view, there is not a shadow of doubt that the Egyptian government neglected its duties on the 26th January,” it wrote. “Not only did the Police fail to stop the fire-raisers, but were, it appears, either watching the show or helping the mob. It would not be an exaggeration to say that there was NO GOVERNMENT in Egypt for a few hours on the 26th January 1952.”

Bubbling anger

The riots were a direct consequence of the Battle of Ismailia, fought a day earlier between British forces and Egyptian police.

British troops surrounded a government building in the Suez Canal town and demanded that the police hand over fedayeen fighters inside. When the request was refused, the building was attacked. The guerrillas were accused of killing 33 British soldiers in earlier clashes linked to opposition to Britain’s continued military presence around the canal.

Although Britain had recognised Egyptian independence in 1922, it retained control over the strategically vital Suez Canal zone.

News of the confrontation in Ismailia quickly spread to Cairo, fuelling anger against colonial forces. Martial law was imposed, though many believed this came only after the worst of the rioting had subsided.

On January 29, the Associated Press reported that business sources estimated fire losses at more than 100 million Egyptian pounds or $288 million. Cairo, still under martial law, was described as quiet.

The 1952 riots have often been compared to the 2011 protests centred on Tahrir Square, which led to the fall of Hosni Mubarak. Six months after the unrest, King Farouk I was forced to abdicate in a coup, and a year later, Egypt abolished the monarchy.

Damage assessment

Barrot was the most vocal among the affected Indians and repeatedly pressed the Ministry of External Affairs to demand compensation. Yet the largest financial loss was suffered by another Indian businessman.

Man Mohan, owner of the jewellery firm Messrs Ganeshi Lall & Sons, lost 50,000 Egyptian pounds. Originally from Agra, he operated his shop on the premises of Shepheard’s Hotel. Mohan was in India at the time and had left the business in the care of a Ceylonese curio shop owner named Hussein Baba.

In a report, the Indian Embassy noted: “According to a written petition submitted to us by Mr. Baba, he looked after the shop as usual on the morning of the 26th and put back the valuable jewels etc. in the steel safe before going for lunch. On his return to the shop at 2:30 pm, the same day, he found a furious mob trying to set fire to Shepheard’s Hotel and could not therefore enter the premises. Kedar, the servant of Man Mohan, did try to intervene with the fire-raising crowd but got a beating for his pains.”

Two days later, embassy officials were escorted by police to assess the damage. “Access into the hotel was impossible as the building had collapsed for the most part and was gradually crumbling,” the embassy reported.

Although authorities later allowed Baba and Kedar to search for salvageable assets after the rubble was cleared, the safe containing the most valuable jewels was never found.

The third Indian affected by the riots was Syed Ahmed, a scholar sponsored by the Bihar government to study at Fouad I University. He lived at a small guesthouse called Cambridge House.

According to the embassy, “On the morning of the 26th, he saw a mob approaching the building. They were intent, it seems, on burning down the place, as the ground floor was occupied by a wine-merchant. It is believed that adherents of the Moslem Brotherhood were among the crowd and that their one aim was to destroy all establishments selling alcohol.”

The name “Cambridge House” also appeared to inflame tempers, though the guesthouse was run by an Egyptian. The mob asked everyone in the building to leave before setting it on fire. Ahmed took refuge at Al-Azhar University and later contacted the Indian Embassy. When he returned the next day, he found only “charred remains” of his belongings. His losses were estimated at 160 Egyptian pounds.

Compensation appeal

While the British Embassy lodged a strongly worded protest with Egypt’s Foreign Ministry, India’s Ministry of External Affairs opted for caution.

“I hope that our demand for full compensation at this juncture, will not lessen the Arab goodwill that we have gained through our sympathy for nationalist movements in the Middle East,” an MEA official wrote in a memo to the Foreign Secretary. “In any case, I suggest that the Charge d’Affaires be asked to make our note factual rather than condemnatory, and to avoid adopting the aggressive tone and abusive language of the Note of Protest sent to the Egyptian Government by the UK Embassy.”

The official suggested that the Charge d’Affaires be prepared to prove that India’s claim to compensation was justified by Egypt’s “negligence” in protecting the property of Indians during the riots.

The Ministry of External Affairs eventually asked Egypt to fully compensate the three Indian nationals, holding the host government responsible without resorting to inflammatory language.

In response, Cairo initially offered no-interest loans repayable over five years as a stop-gap measure, pending trials of those accused of rioting. A total of 5 million Egyptian pounds was earmarked for such loans. But following sustained pressure from foreign governments, Egypt agreed to pay 8 million Egyptian pounds in compensation. Messrs Ganeshi Lall & Sons eventually settled for 7,650 Egyptian pounds, far below its estimated loss of 50,000 Egyptian pounds.

There is no record of compensation for Ahmed’s loss of 160 Egyptian pounds. Barrot, meanwhile, continued to press the Ministry of External Affairs, accusing it of sending “parrot-like replies” and threatening to raise the matter in Parliament. The ministry described his language as “far from polite”.

In an internal memo, the External Affairs Ministry observed: “It is not clear how we or the Indian Embassy, Cairo, can successfully hustle the Egyptian government, as suggested by Mr Barrot. That Government will, no doubt, take their own time to dispose of the claims and there seems to be no alternative but to wait for their final decision.” Eventually, the ministry chose to ignore further letters from the cotton merchant.

India’s relations with Egypt strengthened significantly after Gamal Abdel Nasser became president in 1956. A key figure in the 1952 revolution that overthrew the monarchy, Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal – a move backed by India under Jawaharlal Nehru.

By the mid-1950s, Indian visitors to Egypt often spoke of warm hospitality, reflecting both improved diplomatic ties and the popularity of Hindi cinema in the country. The 1952 Cairo riots, though not directed at them, remained a rare instance in which Indians were caught up in large-scale violence in Egypt.

Ajay Kamalakaran is a writer, primarily based in Mumbai. His latest book, Colombo: Port of Call, has been published by Penguin Random House.