How did the early egyptian nationalist movement vary from that of india?

The correct answer is the following.

The early Egyptian Nationalist movement varies from that of India in that in India, a single political party dominated the nationalist movement. The case of Egypt was different because different rival political parties predominated.

We are referring to the situation prior to World War 1. In Egypt, the first Nationalistic movement was the Urabi Movement of the1870s, the 1880s. Their motto was "Egypt to the Egyptians."  In the case of India, from 1885 to 1905, the Moderates or Early Nationalists were the political leaders that generated the Nationalistic movement in India. It is correct to say that the early Egyptian Nationalist movement varies from that of India in that in India, a single political party dominated the nationalist movement. The case of Egypt was different because different rival political parties predominated.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )