By Amb P Stobdan
The G7 Foreign Ministers Meet in London conspicuously brought the Myanmar crisis – what the British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab described it as a pressing geopolitical situation comparable to Russia, China, and Iran. The ministers watched a video update from not too long ago formed Myanmar’s National Unity Government (NUT) as also expressed solidarity with the exiled government by way of a joint communiqué, and announced targeted sanctions against the junta.
Earlier the Quad summit also discussed Myanmar although it issued a modulated statement “emphasized the urgent need to restore democracy”.
Such a higher profile diplomatic campaign on Myanmar smacks of a larger geopolitical game the dimension of which is not clear as however. What is fascinating is that the UK in its post-Brexit avatar is taking the mantle of this crisis as a major enchilada to demonstrate its previous colonial dexterity and whip hand in Asia.
Myanmar also completely falls into the US’s leading agenda as the very best way to confront China – not clear no matter whether it is a component of Quad’s agenda. But, clearly, a spate of preparatory work appears currently underway, which includes the formation of a government-in-exile, its intention to kind a Federal Union Army comprising defectors, rebel groups, and volunteers. An array of a coalition of ethnic armed groups appears emerging, in addition to reenergizing the Karen rebel group (a British proxy) to bleed the military, and on.
A new narrative is getting set in the West for the birth of an inclusive nationalism and the creation of a Democratic State of Myanmar exactly where non-Buddhists (Christian, Muslim, and other people) do not face institutional discrimination.
The stage is undoubtedly getting set for larger items. Is it meant for uprooting Myanmar’s junta or there is one thing beyond?
Minister S Jaishankar would have discussed the situation in London with Antony Blinken, Dominic Raab and Heiko Maas. But he knows properly that Myanmar is of crucial strategic value to India as he as soon as described the country’s exceptional value to India since of its differential place. The nation was as soon as a component of Indic space Swarna Bhumi that has slid into seclusion to India’s detriment due to inescapable factors.
India is totally also conscious of the military’s paramount part in Myanmar’s polity, its geopolitical reality a) sharing extended borders with China and India b) majority (73 %) Burmans sways small handle more than 50 % of the country’s territory inhabited by 135 ethnic minorities, and c) the legacy of a number of insurgencies inherited that was fueled earlier by monarchy and later by the British.
That Burmese suffered from an instinctive sense of paranoia of losing sovereignty and identity to China and India, as they also at occasions eschewed all contacts with the world outdoors.
We know how the China issue singularly sealed Myanmar’s destiny. All these decades, Beijing totally exploited Myanmar’s idiosyncratic behavior whilst also utilised each and every signifies, diplomatic and financial, as a sine qua non, to hold the nation as the front rather than backyard door to avert the entry of the Anglo-American lobby in Yangon that Beijing believed would pose a threat to its vulnerable southern underbelly.
True, Burmese leaders, military or civilian upheld Beijing’s interests in utmost respect they also held xenophobic nationalist fervor against China. They are instinctive and deep-rooted.
It didn’t having said that automatically imply Burmese adored Indians. Ties with India remained even more controversial regardless of the Theravāda connect, mainly on account of racial animosity (Kala-Admi), exploiters (Chettiar, Marwari), communal due to Muslims (Bengalis/Rohingyas), and on account of Indians getting as well obsequious, dangerously subservient and servile to foreign powers – acting as motivators for missionary efforts – one thing Burmese abhorred.
Most Indians had been driven out among 1930 and the 1960s. The Rohingya’s case apart, their outlook towards India hasn’t changed considering the fact that.
Though, it is difficult to think about how Myanmar has fallen into China’s lap regardless of possessing shared cultural ties, a extended border, and the typical legacy of the British Raj with India.
Among the folly actions, New Delhi’s occasional pang for playing the pro-democracy card (1988), which received applause from the Western world, but earned robust antipathy amongst the Burmese to the extent they regarded India a military threat to Myanmar. Annoyed Yangon as soon as even looked to Islamabad for military help, in addition to embracing a wide variety of Chinese assistance.
Since the 1990s, the national safety imperatives necessitated mending fences with the junta that essentially paid a important dividend. What stands today is a pragmatic Indian policy of a twin-track strategy of preserving constructive engagement with the junta whilst continuing a basic normative assistance for the restoration of democracy.
At a time when Myanmar has began to loom significant in essential places of India’s ‘Act East’ policy, New Delhi really should refrain from joining the Western bandwagon. India merely can’t afford to annoy a different neighbor.
For one factor, the military’s part in Myanmar can’t be wished away, whilst China’s entrenched status in the nation is backed even by democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi. The present military coup almost certainly goes to reflect the internal balance of forces, an interplay necessary to safeguard the country’s sovereignty.
Supporting democratic values howsoever desirable needn’t be India’s priority. New Delhi has lessons discovered from its prior action. Its ambitions really should be solely guided by the principal interest of making certain stability along its borders in the Northeast.
India has each and every cause to counter China’s strategic foray in the Bay of Bengal. But the West might have other agendas than uprooting the junta. In reality, the actual contestation in Myanmar appears more about expanding the Anglo-Saxon missionary bring about that could belie India’s personal objectives. Minus the shared interest for undermining China, the West might have significantly less appetite to stroll into the Myanmar quagmire akin to the Afghan chaos.
To underscore, Myanmar nevertheless follows a political technique that is compatible with Asian cultural traditions in line with the virtues of Buddhism and Hinduism. Democracy for Burmese is not about relishing person rights but bearing Dharmic obligation and sense of duty towards the state that the West dubs as undemocratic.
Make no error Myanmar’s politics is about defending Buddhism. The West is setting a new narrative that it is not so and that it can be altered. And, the present anti-coup resistance is a political cover to break the intrinsic interplay among the sangha neighborhood, politics, and the state. It is a renewed try, in the garb of democracy, to tear down the sangha from the state in order to market the interests of Muslims, Christians, and other people.
What is missing is India’s inability to exploit its personal distinct edge, to locate an out of the box way in addressing the conceptual deficiencies in policy considering that could spur higher enthusiasm amongst the Burmese to seek closer affinity inside India.
(The author is Senior Fellow at Delhi Policy Group, New Delhi. Views expressed are individual and do not reflect the official position or policy of TheSpuzz Online. Email: [email protected])