Burma is again a warning to India of the turbulent neighbourhood it lives in. New Delhi’s policy of befriending neighbours with economic assistance and concessions has an edge in Burma’s case because of the nature of the regime and its strategic implications. Burma is on the very frontier of its Look East policy, not merely in terms of the ASEAN connection but also in defining Chinese ambitions
THERE are two aspects to the Burma tragedy as it is unfolding. It is a rude reminder to the ruling junta that military rule is not a permanent condition for any country. Second, it has brought home to India the compelling reality that if a nation wants a place in the sun, it has to stand up and be counted, however embarrassing a situation might be.
The Indian dilemma on Burma is not unique. Other major powers have discovered long ago that to claim an effective role in the world, they must balance the claims of morality and principle with larger or smaller doses of realpolitik. The American practice of mollycoddling dictators, despite protestations of spreading democracy, is legendary and is best expressed in the motto: ‘He is an SOB but he’s our SOB.’ To an extent, all countries practise balancing acts in pursuit of national interests, but major powers or those aspiring to that status need to pronounce on world events they would rather not.
The Burma crisis presented a problem for New Delhi because it has been cultivating the junta for reasons of self-interest. India is hungry for energy and Burma has gas; in fact, an exploration deal was signed rather recently. Second, India needs Burma’s cooperation in dealing with Northeast insurgents who have been using that country’s territory as a safe haven. Third, growing Chinese inroads into this country’s immediate neighbour have strategic implications for New Delhi.
In fact, India’s policy towards Burma had undergone a drastic change in the early 1990s because traditionally it has been a supporter of democracy proponents and had a special relationship with the family of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel laureate who has spent 12 of the last 18 years under house arrest. And her father, the Burmese independence hero, has a place in Indian hearts.
The weighty reasons for exercising circumspection on dealing with violent Burma protests and their suppression led India to an initial period of silence. But as army action in violently suppressing dissent by unarmed monks and students impinged on the world’s conscience and cries from the United States and the European Union grew louder, that as influential neighbours China and India must act, New Delhi reacted with muted statements, first by foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee and then by the external affairs ministry. And a more unequivocal condemnatory statement came from the Congress ruling party.
Obviously, the boilerplate response that India’s policy is not interfering in other countries’ internal affairs is inadequate in dealing with a situation such as that in Burma. But India has sought to make a distinction between the American rhetoric of a missionary approach to spreading democracy and its own approach of not prescribing a particular solution to another nation’s problems. New Delhi declared that it was ‘not interested in exporting ideology but events have caused concern. We urge a peaceful resolution.’
China’s reaction to the Burma events has been expectedly prudent but its system of governance gives it greater latitude. Thus when Premier Wen Jiabao asked all parties to show restraint, it was taken as a radical departure. And though China blocked a stronger resolution than an expression of ‘concern’ by the UN Security Council, the West applauded it for getting Burma to agree to receive the secretary general’s special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari.
An even more piquant situation was created by the current rotating presidency of ASEAN, the Southeast Asian association, being held by Singapore. ASEAN came out more strongly than ever against a fellow member. But Singapore presented itself as something of a paragon of democracy in the process. For his domestic constituency, the island nation’s George Yeo told a local newspaper that ASEAN has to take a ‘very realistic position to keep (Burma) within the ASEAN family because it is in everybody’s interest.’
Burma has proved to be an early test for India’s diplomacy in its aspiration to be counted as a major power. It needs much fine-tuning and the cultivation of a new culture in which New Delhi makes its views known on knotty problems while considering all the pros and cons of a situation. In the post-Cold War 21st century, democracy has become a flexible concept, with the West, led by the United States, decreeing when a country is a democracy and when it is divested of that status. Traditionally, America distinguishes between ‘good dictators’ and ‘bad dictators.’
Burma’s own destiny seems uncertain. The steep rise in fuel prices was the trigger for the revolt, but its causes were more varied and deep-seated. The junta has ruled the country for some 19 years since the 1988 students’ uprising that was brutally suppressed. Poverty has spread and the middle class is finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. The junta, meanwhile, has moved the capital to the interior calling it Naypyidaw, a metaphor for turning its back on the people.
There are an estimated as many monks (around 400,000) as there are members of the armed forces. Their revolt, in Rangoon and Mandalay and other cities, assumes significance. Some of them have been beaten and arrested and others blockaded in their monasteries, but their message is unequivocal. By and large, they are the younger monks closer to the people than some of their older mentors who might have been co-opted by the junta.
Burma is again a warning to India of the turbulent neighbourhood it lives in. New Delhi’s policy of befriending neighbours with economic assistance and concessions has an edge in Burma’s case because of the nature of the regime and its strategic implications. Burma is on the very frontier of its Look East policy, not merely in terms of the ASEAN connection but also in defining Chinese ambitions.
To what degree India can influence Burma remains to be seen. China’s clout with the junta is far greater, but the world sees India’s responsibility as one stemming from its democratic credentials and therefore the need for it to make greater exertions. India’s statement of September 27 suggested that the ‘process of political return and national reconciliation (in Burma) should be more inclusive and broad-based.’ But the ruling Congress Party has gone further, much further, in berating the junta.
Source: Newage
.gif){kind=spacer}
.gif){kind=spacer}
.gif){kind=spacer}
