Engaging Burma constructively

The Burmese junta leader, General Than Shwe, is on a five-day visit to India starting today. He will hold high-level meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other Indian officials mostly on matters relating to trade and strategic affairs.

The military dictator has been condemned by human rights groups and numerous countries for imprisoning Aung San Suu Kyi and committing wide-spread human rights abuses. While India had initially opposed the military junta, in the 1990s it began engaging the Burmese leadership with larger national interests in mind. The pragmatic decision was influenced largely by the growing Chinese influence in the region, need for Burmese gas and oil reserves, and Burmese assistance in dealing with the growing insurgent activity in north-eastern India.

Since 2000, India and Myanmar have been actively collaborating on weeding out insurgents along the border and developing trade links between the two countries. Security and economic concerns have taken precedence over promoting democracy in the region. Energy cooperation has been a highlight of the decade-long relationship, with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India (ONGC) and Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) partnering with Burmese companies for extraction of natural gas from deposits in the Shwe fields off the western coast of Burma. These Indian companies have a 25% stake in the venture. Infrastructure, manufacturing and hydropower are some other sectors that India is involved in. Today, India is Burma’s fourth largest trade partner with bilateral trade worth around $ 1 billion.

Though this visit might be another routine low-profile visit to improve strategic and trade relations between the two countries, it cannot be left at that. As an aspiring regional power, questions will be raised about what message India gives Burma about the human rights situation and the upcoming elections. Human rights groups would like to see India take a strong position, condemn the abuses and not court the Burmese leader. But the sensitive nature of India’s strategic concerns and aspirations mean that the Prime Minister might only extend some ‘friendly advise’ to Than Shwe. It would be wrong to expect harsh words and reprimanding speeches from India, considering that it has left behind the attitude in the 1990s after its Look East Policy.

Any ‘advise’ to the Burmese junta at the cost of damaging years of diplomatic relations and strategic cooperation would be foolish. More than the oil and gas reserves, India needs Burmese cooperation in dealing with the insurgency in the north-east. While Burma might not be the most active partner, it is necessary to ensure that it is not a nuisance or a safe haven for the insurgents. Human Rights abuses are a fact in Burma, but there are other ways to influence favorable behavior than simply public condemnation and loss of diplomatic goodwill. As argued earlier India needs to save it influence and goodwill for larger issues such as Burmese nuclear ambition.

The Indian Prime Minister should take this opportunity to extend support and guidance in conducting free and fair elections in Burma. As the largest and successful democracy in the region, India has the necessary experience and standing to do so. India could offer direct assistance/guidance in voter registration, ensuring security at voting booths, use of electronic voting machines, etc. It could also offer to be an external observer during the election process to oversee that the elections are held in a democratic, free and fair manner. It would help Burma’s image if it allows external observers into the process.  Such constructive contribution by India to the democratic process would be of greater value than merely opposing the Burmese junta on principals.

India’s influence in Burma might be on the rise, but the relation is still one of mutual dependence. India is not merely a benefactor of Burma. The silence on human rights abuses and lack of democracy after years of principled opposition is a hard choice that the Indian government made due to pressing strategic and security concerns. Foreign policy dictated by national interests is a prudent approach. All big powers at different times in their history have had to make hard choices and support despotic fanatic regimes for their larger national interest. It is almost a rite of passage in becoming a bigger power. India should therefore not feel pressured by the criticism of the human rights groups and other western countries to change its policy of engagement with Burma. It is unfortunate that India has to choose cooperation with a military dictator, but if that ensures peace and prosperity of the country and the region it should be welcomed.

——–

Update: Agreements signed between India and Myanmar during the visit.