|
Round The Word
Why India Needs Myanmar
By M D Nalapat*
New Delhi, October 15, 2007
Nine years ago, New Delhi completed the process of
abandoning a policy towards the ruling group in Myanmar that
followed the line of the western powers, who are seeking
openly to topple the regime by isolation and diplomatic
pressure. Since then, there has been a considerable
improvement in relations between the two Governments, and the
two countries are on their way to becoming strategic partners.
This friendship has not been to the liking of the US and the
European Union. Over the past weeks, there has been a rising
drumbeat of editorial criticism from both sides of the
Atlantic about the cooperation between the Manmohan Singh
Government and the generals in Myanmar.
After considerable behind-the-scenes US-EU pressure, there
have been statements from China and India about the need for
the generals to go slow on the crackdown on pro-democracy
activists. However, neither they nor ASEAN is likely to adopt
the US-EU policy of isolation and sanctions, which has more
than a trace of hypocrisy in it.
Pakistan & Bangladesh Too
As can be seen from any political map, Myanmar is not the only
military dictatorship in the region. Both Bangladesh as well
as Pakistan is ruled by generals who have assumed office
through coups against elected Governments. Why the people of
Myanmar alone deserve freedom from military rule and not those
of Pakistan and Bangladesh is a question that western capitals
need to answer, for they back the military in Dacca and
Islamabad as strongly as they oppose the Myanmar generals.
While the people of Myanmar should be given the Government of
their choice, why such a preference is not made with any
visible emphasis in the case of, for example, the 1.3 billion
people of China or the Myanmar-sized population of Saudi
Arabia remains not only obscure, but also seems an exercise in
hypocrisy.
The reality is that the reason for western protest is not a
commitment towards democracy but the business-driven desire to
change a Junta that (unlike those installed in Islamabad,
Dacca or elsewhere) treats Chinese interests as a much higher
priority than it does those of countries volubly seeking its
overthrow.
Were the generals in that country to follow Muammar Gaddafy in
genuflecting before the US and the EU, the shrillness of tone
in the US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad's demands that the UN
Security Council take strong action may fall by several
decibels, and would most likely be replaced by praise of the
Tatmadaw, the military.
Why such a transparent focus on a country’s self-interest is
morally repugnant when practiced by New Delhi ( as numerous
editorial contributors in the US and Europe have been pointing
out) but not in the case of India's fellow-democracies farther
to the west needs more explanation than such writers seem
willing or able to give.
Unlike the NATO powers, India shares a border with Myanmar of
over a thousand kilometers. Moreover, the country is New
Delhi's only land bridge to the rest of ASEAN. In order to
enhance the volume of regional cooperation (still low enough
to be derided by the same editorial writers), road-rail access
is critical.
The reason why India is pursuing towards Myanmar the same
policy that is being carried out in the case of Pakistan and
Bangladesh --- working with the regime in office ---
preferable though a democratic replacement would be.
For both the US as well as the EU, there are clearly generals
and there are generals, as there are people hungering for
democracy (in Myanmar) just as there are in China and in other
authoritarian structures, a fact that is ignored by those
formulating and commenting on policy in the NATO states.
Indeed, the generals in Myanmar have been far more
accommodative of Indian interests than those ensconced in
Dacca and Islamabad, both capitals of countries that provide
safe haven to hundreds of extremists waging a low-intensity
war against India, the world's most populous democracy.
Policy of Isolation
The Pakistan army, in particular, has long nurtured Wahabbi
fanatics, and continues to do so, while the Bangladesh army is
unwilling to admit that their country has become infested with
"Al Qaeda" elements. In contrast, after the earlier policy of
isolation was replaced by vigorous engagement nine years ago,
the Tatmadaw has blocked Indian-born extremists from using
their territory to launch attacks against their home country,
and has sought to check the abundant flow of armaments from
China's Yunnan province to the hands of anti-India extremists.
And yes, access to the country's oil and gas resources is
another reason for New Delhi's refusal to take the advice of
the NATO powers --- to stop all contact with the regime in
Myanmar --- seriously.
At present, and unusually for any part of the world, Chinese
companies are far ahead of western entities such as Chevron
and Total in gaining control of hydrocarbon reserves, a factor
that some suspect may influence US-EU policy.
New Delhi would like to carve for itself a larger slice of the
pie, even while continuing to maintain close links with the
democracy movement, several thousand of whose activists have
made India their home for decades. Unlike the west, that is
selective about which countries it sees as ready for
democracy, Indian policy recognizes both the desirability of
that system as well as the double standard involved in a
Churchillian application of Jeffersonian ideals.
Who can forget that for Winston Churchill, freedom stopped at
skin colour. Only those of European extraction were deemed fit
to be free. The rest --- including India --- were seen by
Churchill as eternal slaves. Such a double standard is no
longer acceptable. India needs Myanmar, and needs good
relations with it.---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature
Alliance)
* (The writer holds UNESCO Peace Chair, Prof, Geopolitics,
Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Ex-Resident Editor, Times
of India, Delhi)
E-Mail :
newseditor@sarkaritel.com
|
