A matter of great concern for India since Independence has been the future of Burma, a country with which it shares land and maritime boundaries. Three years before Independence, India’s ambassador-historian Sardar K M Panikkar had underlined the strategic significance of Burma in the following words: “The defence of Burma is, in fact, the defence of India and it is India’s primary concern, no less than Burma’s, to see that its frontiers remain inviolate. In fact, no responsibility should be considered too heavy for India when it comes to the question of defending Burma.”
In the early years of Independence, Jawaharlal Nehru played a significant role in bolstering Burma politically and militarily. In fact, like Indonesia, Burma and its leadership were very close to New Delhi. Professor Werner Levi, the distinguished political scientist, even remarked that Burma was India’s satellite.
Two snapshots would reveal how close Nehru was to the leaders of Burma. January 1948. It was an extremely cold winter. General Aung San came to New Delhi on his way to London to finalise the terms of the transfer of power. Seeing him clad in cotton suits, Nehru told Aung San that London would be extremely cold and he should have woollen suits. He took his woollen overcoat from the wardrobe and put it around Aung San. He also arranged two woollen suits to be made and gave them to him. Aung San Suu Kyi, delivering the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi in November 1994, reminisced about this incident to narrate the close camaraderie between her father and Nehru and how the Burmese nationalists always looked to him for guidance and support.
Soon after its independence, Burma was plunged into a civil war. The assassination of Aung San was followed by armed revolts led by the communists, Kachins and Karens. Even the security of Rangoon was threatened by rebel forces. Indian concern was naturally sharpened with the emergence of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, which shared common borders with both India and Burma. Nehru persuaded the Commonwealth countries to provide military and economic aid to Burma. Indian assistance encompassed both military and economic assistance and also the bolstering of the U Nu regime. It aimed to have a friendly, non-aligned and non-communist buffer between India and China. It was also to prevent the destabilisation of northeast India, where the Nagas, Mizos, and Meities straddle the India-Burma border.
India’s principled stance continued for many years. But during the Rajiv Gandhi era, with J N Dixit as the foreign secretary, New Delhi began to get closer to the military regime. The change was dictated by strategic considerations. The rebels in the Northeast—Nagas and Mizos in particular—were supported by China with arms and they used Burmese territory to go to China. The military brass felt that if we got the Burmese army’s support, we would be able to contain the threat posed by the rebels. There had been several occasions when the Indian Army, in hot pursuit, entered Burmese territory to carry out their fight against the rebels. The result was the betrayal of the democratic forces in Myanmar. In the course of the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial lecture, Suu Kyi, more in sorrow than in anger, expressed her anguish over India letting them down. To quote: “I was saddened to feel that we had drawn away from India, or rather that India has drawn away from us, during our very difficult days, but I always had faith in the lasting friendship between our peoples”. She emphasised “friendship between peoples”, not friendship between governments because, she added, “governments come and go, and that is what democracy is all about”. A good friend of mine, who retired as secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, was present in the meeting. He told me that he felt ashamed when Suu Kyi expressed her innermost feelings about GoI’s changed attitude.
Myanmar is now sitting on the top of a volcano. According to a recent report of the International Crisis Group, Myanmar “is edging towards a state collapse”. The Report adds the army has lost both “trust and confidence”. The political, social and economic turmoil is getting worse and unless the global community intervenes in a big way, refugees would start pouring into neighbouring countries. Media reports suggest there is every possibility that the ethnic rebels, for tactical reasons, may join forces with democratic forces.
The Myanmar Army is making exaggerated claims that it is consolidating power and the protests are fizzling out. On March 7, the Armed Forces Day, the military held a massive parade of troops and weapons. Elsewhere they were shooting down unarmed civilians, killing 158, including 14 children. All neighbouring countries—China, India, Bangladesh, Thailand and Laos—as also Pakistan, Russia, and Vietnam sent their representatives to witness the parade.
In its official statements, the GoI has stated it would work for the restoration of democracy in Myanmar. But it sounds hollow in the context of India’s participation in the military parade on March 6, which implies providing legitimacy to the military establishment. The need of the hour is for New Delhi to mobilise international support for the restoration of democracy, raise the issue in the UN Security Council, General Assembly and Human Rights Council; work for an arms embargo to the military; impose economic sanctions on military-owned business interests, and send special delegations to various countries to explain the true nature of the military regime. These suggestions are unlikely to find favour with the powers that be in New Delhi. What is more, the present military regime could count on China’s strong support.
While advocating a pro-activist policy towards Myanmar, all sections of public opinion—media, trade unions, human rights organizations and political parties—should come together and express their solidarity with Suu Kyi and the voiceless people of Myanmar. Her stirring lecture, which I have referred to earlier, has raised the basic question: What should be India’s policy towards democratic struggles in neighbouring countries? Can we remain silent when democratic institutions are slowly facing extinction? We cannot adopt a policy of cynicism and opportunism as China, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and few member states of ASEAN are pursuing today.
Pro-democracy forces in different parts of the world have occasionally suffered reverses. But the logic of history and the justness of the cause would surely bring about a turn for the better. Did not the dictatorial regimes in the Philippines and Indonesia crumble before the combined might of the people? India should not be caught utterly unprepared, a fate that befell the ASEAN governments when the detested regimes of Marcos and Suharto were flung into the dustbin of history.
Suu Kyi pointed out in the Joyce Memorial Lecture a few years ago: “The dream of a society ruled by loving kindness, reason and justice is a dream as old as civilised man. Does it have to be an impossible dream? Karl Popper, explaining his abiding optimism in so troubled a world as ours, said that darkness had always been there, but the light was new. Because it is new, it has to be tended with love and diligence.”
V Suryanarayan
Senior Professor (Retd), Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Madras
(suryageeth@gmail.com)