L.N.Mittal or Alien Mittal?

Someone really got to help me understand why is Indian Government trying to persuade the French & Luxemburg governments regarding the Mittal-Arcelor feud? Born in Churu, educated in Kolkata, Lakshmi Niwas Mittal moved out of the country in 1994 and at present holds an NRI status and stays in Britain. He has done well to be the richest man outside the US and the third richest man in the World, but what has he done for India? His group has presence in almost every country in the World other than India.

May be Indians are behaving in an emotional manner, biased towards their own son. The deal Mittal has offered looks fair and there are not many fair doubts the Arcelor shareholders should have, but that's not the point. Even if it is done for good, is there any place for such emotions in diplomacy?

Some further doubts -

1. What about Abdul Lateef Naushad, who was serving in a Saudi Arab jail for six months, waiting for his eyes to be gouged. His wife ran from pillar-to-post for saving her husband, the only earning member in the family. The external affairs ministry couldn't have been more indifferent. I quote from the Rediff.com report:

   "This kind of rigid, eye-for-eye Saudi law has executed hundreds of Indians there. Hundreds of Indians are currently jailed in Saudi Arabia for no serious criminal reasons," says human rights activist K Gopalakrishnan.
   
   One of the recent incidents was the execution of Naickam Ittiparambil Shahjahan last year. The Saudi Arabian government had charged Shahjahan with smuggling brown sugar in his shoes when he boarded the flight from Chennai to Dammam four years ago.
   
   But soon after his execution, the ministry of external affairs in New Delhi received a message from the Saudi Arabian government, which officially admitted that Shahjahan was innocent.

2. What about Fiji's ousted Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhary? After George Speight staged a armed coup and threw Chaudhary in prison, India did little other than imposing some economic bans, despite some protests. I quote from the Tribune editorial:

   There is some hope of improvement only if international pressure intensifies.[..] Australia and New Zealand have done some tough talking on the subject. “There is no point in mincing words — he (Mr Chaudhry) was kidnapped and detained unlawfully. It was a criminal act. He was democratically elected and what George Speight and his supporters are arguing for is a racially prejudiced Constitution,” Australian Prime Minister John Howard has said. New Zealand has been equally forthright. The role these two countries play will determine to a large extent the future course of Fiji. The problem is that imposing severe sanctions will further damage Fiji’s economy, thereby hurting many of the people the world is trying to help. As such, it has to be two-track diplomacy all the way. India has not played as active a role as expected. The expulsion of Fiji from the Commonwealth is hardly its achievement because this course is already outlined in detail under the Harare Declaration and the Millbrook Action Programme. The diplomatic initiative by New Delhi has not gone much beyond discussing the matter with the visiting Mr Howard. Its argument that India would not like to be seen to be applying pressure on the present dispensation in Suva lest it has an adverse impact on Fijian Indians does not sound very convincing.

3. What about the whole "patka" issue regarding Sikhs in France? Did Indian government do anything for those Sikhs?

The point is not that government should've dived into all the aforementioned issues (I'm sure we can find many more indifferent moments from the external affairs ministry, if we rake through the history); the point is why is Kamal Nath playing hardball with EU over Mittal? The wikipedia page on LN Mittal provides an interesting insight:

In 2002 he was embroiled in a political scandal dubbed Mittalgate with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as many felt that a donation he had made to the British Labour Party had led to Blair's intervention (a letter to the Romanian prime minister) in a business deal favouring Mittal. On July 13, 2005 it was announced that he had donated £2 million to the Labour Party.

I don't think I'm very well informed to comment or speculate any further. However, I would like to see what Vivek Kumar, an undertraining IFS officer himself, has to say about it.