India-Myanmar news and discussion

[RajeshA]

But how can she be allowed a say in the governemt, when the NLD did not participate in the elections in the first place. The people who will form the next govt have little to do with both Su Ki and NLD.

Well I don't want to bring Indian politics here, but the Honorable Prime Minister Shri Manmohan Singh also did not participate in the last elections as a candidate. Then there is the concept of Government of National Unity.

[Pratyush]

We will have to wait for that to happen. In the mean time work with the existing setup as best as we can.

PS the PM is a member of the RS. Otherwise he would have to seen an election withen 6 months of becoming the PM.

[Airavat]

Myanmar election commission publishes election results

The USDA (Union Solidarity and Development Party), led by Prime Minister U Thein Sein, occupies 259 seats out of 325 with the house of representatives, 129 seats out of 168 with the house of nationalities, and 495 seats or 74.8 percent out of 661 with the seats of region or state parliament.

The USDP is followed by the National Unity Party (NUP) with 63 seats, in which 12 with the house of representatives, 5 with the house of nationalities and 46 with the region or state parliament. The Shan Nationalities Democratic Party (SNDP) took 57 seats, in which the party shares 18 with the house of representatives, 3 with the house of nationalities and 36 with the region or state parliament.

The Rakhine Nationalities Development Party held 35 seats with 9 in the house of representatives, 7 in the house of nationalities and 19 in region or state parliament, while the National Democratic Force (NDF) and the All Mon Region Democracy Party (AMRDP) each with 16 at three levels of parliament. Some minor number of seats were won by other parties which fielded a lesser number of candidates for the election.

[VinodTK]

‘India saddened me... let’s talk now’

“I am saddened with India. I would like to have thought that India would be standing behind us. That it would have followed in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru,” said Suu Kyi.

[Dhiman]

‘India saddened me... let’s talk now’

“I am saddened with India. I would like to have thought that India would be standing behind us. That it would have followed in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru,” said Suu Kyi.

Once completely free of its military junta hangups, this country is a natural friend for India. In the meantime, India has its compulsions and so does Suu Kyi.

[Victor]

India should help Suu Kyi by encouraging and directing the process of relaxing sanctions and opening up the Burmese economy without messing with the democracy angle for now. Kills many birds with one stone and we do need to demonstrate some positive regional leadership.

[Airavat]

Suu Kyi interview with a Japanese paper

Q: You emphasize national reconciliation. Does that include the junta? How would you expect them to have dialogue with you?

A: Diversity is not something that comes easily to the military mind-set. But, at the same time, even this regime, as we have noticed, has had to say that they are working for democracy, even if they do qualify it by saying "disciplined democracy." So the trend in this world is such today that, at least nominally, even dictators have to accept that the democratic rule is the most desirable one. Well, that's the first step: the fact that they have to accept that democracy is desirable, even if they do try to qualify it in some way or the other. And then, of course, when people keep asking me, "How can you achieve reconciliation with them when there are so many differences," my answer is that it is particularly because of these differences that we have to try to achieve reconciliation. There are differences to be reconciled. If there were no differences, then there would be no need for reconciliation.

Q: What is the bottom line for you? You have big differences in terms of the result of 1990's elections and also the Constitution, are you ready to make some kind of compromise on these particular points?

A: If one believes in dialogue, one has to believe in compromise as well. If you are not prepared to compromise, then it is no use saying that you want dialogue, because it cannot become a genuine dialogue. But we don't say what the bottom line is, because I think it's very dangerous to go into any negotiations, before there has even been a whisper of an approach to negotiation, by saying this is a bottom line.

Q: Now, we have a totally different political landscape in the region. One of the factors is China and India, which are emerging powers and are really quite influential in the Burmese economy and Myanmar politics. How would you communicate with them? They haven't had much contact with you.

A: Well, we will have to try talking to them, won't we? (We will have to) persuade them to talk to us in return.

Q: What kind of roles would you expect those (countries) to play?

A: It depends very much on what they are prepared to do and what we might be able to persuade them to do. It's not something that we can decide on our own.

Q: What about Japan? Is there anything the Japanese government could contribute?

A: Well, we always think that the Japanese government could contribute more. I find the people of Japan, in general, are far more supportive than the government, although I want to make it quite clear that we do think that this government is doing more than has been done for a long time by other governments. So, we appreciate what they have done to try to help the situation in Burma, but we would still like them to try to do more.

[Pratyush]

Once completely free of its military junta hangups, this country is a natural friend for India. In the meantime, India has its compulsions and so does Suu Kyi.

Indians will be well served to remember that next to pakistan burma was the country that was most to hostile to India and Indian's in general. The expulsion of Indians from burma in the 50s it seems has been forgotten.

Ang Sans pious wishes not withstanding.

[Victor]

Indians will be well served to remember that next to pakistan burma was the country that was most to hostile to India and Indian's in general.

How so? The Burmese have more in common with Indians than they do with Chinese. Sorry, but this sounds like something that a paki would say.

The west feared an India that stretched from the Malacca Straits to Turkmenistan as much as China fears a 4-lane highway running from Mumbai to Hanoi. The "anti-Indian" bogey was manufactured with the connivance of the Brits and the needs of dictators that took over in all the "countries" that were manufactured out of India. They needed something other than themselves to focus the general discontent on so "Indians" meant everyone brown that was not local. In pakiland, Burmese and Tamils were "Indians" and in Burma, pakis and Bengalis were "Indians". The Indosphere will reassert itself naturally and we need to work towards that by emphasizing the commonalities, not the differences.

[Varoon Shekhar]

"Indians will be well served to remember that next to pakistan burma was the country that was most to hostile to India and Indian's in general. The expulsion of Indians from burma in the 50s it seems has been forgotten."

Well said. Although the behaviour of the ethnic Indians as a whole was not angelic( whose is?) the expulsion was totally unjustified. Not fully integrating or identifying with Burma, sending some money home etc, is hardly reason to expel hundreds of thousands of people.

The Burmese students in India, the supporters of Aung San both in Myanmar and outside it, and more sophisticated Burmese in general are friendly and certainly not hostile, to Indians.

[Varoon Shekhar]

"The "anti-Indian" bogey was manufactured with the connivance of the Brits and the needs of dictators that took over in all the "countries" that were manufactured out of India.."

This is very interesting. Has there been a 'conspiracy' to ensure that non-progressive countries are in India's neighbourhood, so that the region does not grow economically, under some kind of Indian pre-eminence? Pakistan right from the outset, Sri Lanka under Jayawardene and like minded leaders, Bangladesh under the generals and Khaleda, and Burma as mentioned, are evidence in that direction.

Why is it that figures of the stature and ideology of Nehru, Radhakrishnan, Indira, Gujral( leaving aside for the moment their blunders, inadequacies etc) don't arise in these neighbouring countries? Progressive, pluralist regimes would naturally be attracted toward India. What was the role of the British in preventing this development?

[Pratyush]

Varooon,

My responce in the OT thread.

[VinodTK]

Suu Kyi appeals to India for strengthened relations

Aung San Suu Kyi who is a recipient of India’s highest civilian ward of Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding in 1995, reminds her listeners that over 2,000 political prisoners in Burma, as well as millions more, remain awaiting their right to live in freedom and “look toward India as a longstanding friend of Burma to help…in that quest.”

[Airavat]

Wikileaks on Myanmar

In a 2004 meeting with US Embassy officials, the Joint Secretary, South East Asia, Mitra Vashishta said that India would welcome US suggestions on how to best to promote democracy in Myanmar. Expressing concern about Chinese influence in Myanmar, Vashishta said that the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has been "learning from the master about how to hoodwink the international community" on human rights.

He said India had agreed to provide grants and limited military equipment to Rangon in an attempt to encourage cooperation against anti-India insurgents located along the Indo-Burma border. "However, there are no Indian plans to conduct joint military operations with the junta," said the cable.

"The decision to encourage democracy in Rangoon reflects the GOI belief that India is best placed to help Burma reform, that Aung San Suu Kyi's 'time has come and gone,' and that democracy will take root in Burma only through greater engagement and people-to-people ties," the cable said.

[Prem]

India has laid foundation for construction of port and waterway terminal of a Myanmar-India Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project in Sittway township of western Myanmar's Rakhine state, local media reported Monday.The project was conerstoned in the Rakhine township Sunday, according to the official daily New Light of Myanmar.The Kaladan river project aims at promoting trade between the two countries and is targeted to complete by 2013.India stands as Myanmar's fourth largest trading partner after Thailand, China and Singapore

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... in-Myanmar

[Prem]

Wrong place !!

[JE Menon]

Prem, pls post that in the appropriate thread...

[Pratyush]

India-Myanmar ratify Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty

[abhishek_sharma]

China beats India to Stilwell Road contract in Myanmar

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/China ... mar/733995

[krisna]

^^^^
related article but more in depth.
Stilwell Rd to be reborn

It takes seven days for cargo to move by road from the northeast to Kolkata, then around three to four weeks to move by sea to China," said Saharia. Cargo from the northeast transported along the Stilwell Road could reach Yunnan in less than two days.
The Stilwell Road could emerge as a preferred route for transporting goods to China from other parts of India too, given the short distance to Yunnan.

Construction on the Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project is reported to have begun late last month. The project envisages connecting the northeastern state of Mizoram with the Bay of Bengal and is expected to be completed by 2013, giving goods from India's landlocked northeast access to the sea.

The project involves constructing roads linking Mizoram with Kaletwa in Myanmar, development of the Kaladan River as a waterway and improving the infrastructure of the port at Sittwe, capital of Myanmar's Arakan province and the point where the Kaladan River empties into the Bay of Bengal.

Thus goods from the northeast can be transported by road and river to Sittwe port from where it can be moved by sea to other Southeast Asian countries. Sittwe's importance as a port will also grow as it serves as a center for development of offshore gas fields in the area and terminal for a gas pipeline planned to run north to China.

India had been eyeing Sittwe port for several reasons, sea access for cargo from the northeast being one. Indian interest in Sittwe was also particularly high as relations with Bangladesh have at times been poor and Dhaka was reluctant to give Indian goods access to its Chittagong port.

Relations with Bangladesh have improved substantially over the past two years and Dhaka has expressed interest in allowing India to use Chittagong port as another outlet for its goods.

Access to Chittagong will no doubt reduce the commercial importance of Sittwe to India. But Sittwe has strategic importance for India as well. Besides, access to road, rail and other outlets in more countries is good for trade, Saharia said, pointing out that this “will reduce India's dependence on one country.”

[VinodTK]

^^^ Related story

China Lite

The World War II "Stilwell (or Ledo) Road", from northeast India into Burma, is going to be rebuilt. The road was originally, in 1942, built to replace the "Burma Road" that got Allied military aid to Chinese troops fighting the Japanese. But Japan captured Burma in 1942, and cut that connection. The new road will bypass India, and just go from China into Burma. India is not happy about being left out, and nervous about how the new road will go right up to the Indian border.

[RajeshA]

Published on Mar 16, 2011
By Nirupama Subramanian
‘Maybe Myanmar is our Pakistan': Hindu

Mr. Kumar told the American diplomat that engagement with the Myanmar junta was an imperative for India for several reasons.

“The ULFA guys hiding in Burma are screwing the hell out of us!” he said, noting that “Burma is the only one helping us” to tackle the northeastern insurgency. “Tell Bangladesh to co-operate and I am happy to say bye bye Myanmar.”

India was also trying to deal with the insurgency by creating economic opportunities in the northeastern region, and Myanmar was crucial for this, too.

“Bangladesh's stubbornness in allowing access to transit routes for trade leaves us with Burma as the only alternative to connect the northeast to ASEAN markets,” and provide an economic incentive for the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) to lay down arms.

Mr. Kumar commented that the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China maintained close ties with Myanmar but did not face the same pressure from the U.S. to refrain from engaging with it. “Do you want us to connect through China?” he asked. Tit for tat, he asked Mr. Osius why the U.S. was not pushing for democracy in Pakistan. “Why not pick on Musharraf? Where is democracy there?”

He compared India's policy in Myanmar with the U.S. policy in Pakistan. “Maybe Myanmar is our Pakistan,” he is quoted as saying in a dubious, though memorable, formulation.

But Mr. Kumar also allowed that India had not given up on democracy altogether, stating that the government “continues to push them at every opportunity.”

[vipins]

Two dead as strong quake hits Myanmar: officials

YANGON — A strong earthquake struck Myanmar near the Thai border on Thursday, killing at least two people, including a child, officials from both countries said, with shaking felt across the region.

[chaanakya]

At least 75 dead in Burma quake: official

At least 75 people were killed when a strong earthquake struck Burma, officials said on Friday, with fears that the toll would rise as news filtered through from remote areas still cut off.

Tremors were felt as far away as Bangkok, almost 800 kilometres from the epicentre, in Hanoi and parts of China when the earthquake hit late on Thursday, which the US Geological Survey (USGS) measured at magnitude 6.8.

A Burmese official said 74 people were killed and 110 were injured in five areas close to the epicentre. More than 240 buildings had collapsed.

[Kati]

First of all, a great source of Burma related news and articles:

http://burmadigest.info/2011/04/07/burm ... l-06-2011/




Next, an important article which has far reaching implications.......

The Financial Times – Burmese junta wary of China’s embrace
By Helen Warrell in London and Tim Johnston in Bangkok

Published: April 6 2011 18:04 | Last updated: April 6 2011 18:04

In Mong La, a gambling town on Burma’s north-eastern border with China, business is booming. Chinese gamblers, flush with cash from the profits made from Burmese timber, gems and mines, place big bets on the turn of a card, all bills to be settled in renminbi.

It is in towns such as this that China’s increasingly cosy embrace of Burma becomes apparent: everything from the currency to the mobile phone network is Chinese, marking Mong La out as an enclave beyond the influence of the Burmese generals.

This may be an extreme example of China’s growing influence in Burma, but its pervasive investment, which provided $10bn, two-thirds of all foreign investment in Burma, over the financial year 2010-11, is part of a larger trend. It is not only worrying western politicians, who fret they are being outmanoeuvred in the race for Burma’s natural resources, but the Burmese themselves.

“China has a grand strategy to control Burma because it is strategic to them. If anything happens to their eastern seaboard, they must have access to the west,” says one Burma analyst.

“As long as you have control of business, you are running the economy whether we like it or not.”

While Beijing provides vital trade for a country hobbled by western sanctions, Burma’s ruling junta is predictably silent on the subject of its northern neighbour.

“There is concern about the growing influence of China and part of that reflects the opaqueness of the system here,” a diplomat told the Financial Times. “There are no public statements about the relationship.”

It seems that in private, however, the generals admit they have concerns. The Burmese government approached US diplomats in Rangoon in 2009 to propose better bilateral economic relations in order to “buffer Chinese dominance”, according to diplomatic cables.

The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing website, detail an overture by a “well-connected” Burmese businessman acting as the government’s informal envoy.

“Asked his view of why the [government of Burma] is anxious for a better relationship with the US, [the source] said with assurance: China. The senior [Burmese] leadership really dislikes being too heavily dependent on one dominating neighbour and hopes the US can be a buffer,” one September 2009 dispatch reads.

At the time, the US state department was carrying out a comprehensive review of its Burma policy, which combined broad sanctions that preclude US nationals or businesses from most economic activity in Burma with only minimal diplomatic contact.

The review, published in November that year, concluded that sanctions should be maintained but there should be increased diplomatic contacts at a more senior level.

The resolution was in line with the envoy’s message, as relayed in the cable, that the Burmese government did not expect relief from sanctions in the short term but hoped for an upgrade of diplomatic relations and an exchange of high-level visits.

James Webb, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee’s east Asia and Pacific affairs subcommittee, who visited Burma just a month before the cable was sent, has long argued that US sanctions give China a free hand in a strategically important part of the world.

He is not alone. “By closing off economic and diplomatic engagement with the west, sanctions have pushed [Burma] economically and politically closer to China,” the International Crisis Group think-tank wrote in a report last month. The authors said: “This is not a traditional or natural diplomatic posture” for Burma, which has always felt squeezed
uncomfortably between India and China.

The flood of Chinese into border towns and Mandalay, the old royal capital, has fed anxieties about Chinese neo-colonialism.

Chinese interest lies almost exclusively in extractive industries and that often leaves few benefits for other parts of the economy, says Sean Turnell, a Burma specialist at Macquarie University in Australia.

“There is little indication that any Chinese investment could be at all transformative for the Burmese economy – Burma is just providing cheap resources,” he says.

This perception that Burma is losing out – felt from the generals down – is evident in dispatches from US diplomats in Rangoon.

US diplomats reported, in a 2010 cable, opposition to a hydroelectric project in Kachin state, northern Burma, where 15,000 people were to be relocated. The project was a collaboration between Burma’s Asia World Co and Chinese Power Investment Corp.

Local activists sent a petition signed by more than 4,100 people opposing the project to the Chinese government but tellingly, not to Burmese authorities, said the cable. The dam, the first of seven planned for the Irrawaddy and its tributaries, went ahead anyway.

[joshvajohn]

Ban calls for genuine transition to democracy in Myanmar
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... anmar&Cr1=

China Entices Myanmar as India Struggles to ‘Look East’
http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/ChinaEn ... lai_110411

‘Maybe Myanmar is our Pakistan’
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/ar ... epage=true

If Myanmar is democratic it will become more pro India than pro China!

[VinodTK]

Burma and India: the new geopolitical reality

India’s increasing contacts with the Burmese junta are driven by two security priorities. Firstly to win the support of the Junta in combating separatist rebels in India’s northeastern states particularly making it more difficult for rebels to cross over the relatively porous 1,500 km border. To this end India has provided The Burmese military with tanks, helicopters and artillery. Of much greater significance, however, is the need to counter China’s growing influence in the country and in Southeast Asia as a whole.

[Varoon Shekhar]

True, a democratic, pluralistic( politically and culturally) Myanmar will be more pro-India than pro-China. That's almost by definition. Even a military ruled Myanmar is not totally pro-China.

But notice that the Western, particularly Anglo-American, commentators almost never mention this, or use that kind of phraseology when they refer to India and Myanmar? It goes back to what I remarked on in another thread, that there is a conspiracy of sorts by the US and UK, to prevent truly progressive countries from developing in India's neighbourhood. India would love to see democratic, progressive, politically and culturally/linguistically pluralistic countries and societies in its backyard. Yet, something has prevented such a condition from being realised. China is the main foreign culprit at the moment, in league with oligarchic, militaristic elites of South Asia. But where were the US and UK all these years in encouraging Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal to be democratic, pluralistic, progressive, modern and rational?

[shyamd]

China signs strategic partnership with Myanmar

[g.sarkar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/world ... &ref=world
"Ending Myanmar Visit, McCain Urges Democratic Reform
By SETH MYDANS
Published: June 3, 2011
BANGKOK — Ending a three-day visit to Myanmar, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, warned the country’s leaders that “the winds of change” now blowing in the Middle East could spread if governments do not listen to the needs of their people.
“Governments that shun evolutionary reforms now will eventually face revolutionary change later,” Mr. McCain told reporters at a news conference in the main city, Yangon, according to wire service reports.
He urged the government to free political prisoners and to assure the safety of the pro-democracy leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who said recently that she was planning to travel through the country on her first foray outside Yangon since being released from house arrest last November.
“Aung San Suu Kyi’s last attempt to travel freely was marred by violence, and the new government’s ability and willingness to prevent a similar outcome this time will be an important test of their desire for change,” Mr. McCain said."
Gautam

[joshvajohn]

Burma's secret Karen genocide
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/47835
A proper democratic Myanmar will be the best friend of India. Majority Myanmar people are Budhdhists and Buddhists monks are very strong in support of democracy. they will not Change their religion at all after democracy though some tribes are Christians. But democracy is best for growth and development in Myanmar. this will keep them away from China and will certainly help India.

[UBanerjee]

True, a democratic, pluralistic( politically and culturally) Myanmar will be more pro-India than pro-China. That's almost by definition. Even a military ruled Myanmar is not totally pro-China.

But notice that the Western, particularly Anglo-American, commentators almost never mention this, or use that kind of phraseology when they refer to India and Myanmar? It goes back to what I remarked on in another thread, that there is a conspiracy of sorts by the US and UK, to prevent truly progressive countries from developing in India's neighbourhood. India would love to see democratic, progressive, politically and culturally/linguistically pluralistic countries and societies in its backyard. Yet, something has prevented such a condition from being realised. China is the main foreign culprit at the moment, in league with oligarchic, militaristic elites of South Asia. But where were the US and UK all these years in encouraging Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal to be democratic, pluralistic, progressive, modern and rational?

Frankly we need to play a bigger role instead of relying on distant nations to do it. Its our neighborhood.

[RajeshA]

Published on Jun 15, 2011
By Thomas Fuller
Myanmar Government Troops Battle Rebels Near China Border: New York Times

Hundreds of Chinese technicians and workers have been evacuated across the border into China as well as about 2,000 civilians, according to Aung Kyaw Zaw, a former soldier in the now-defunct Burmese Communist Party, who is in contact with leaders of the ethnic groups and lives on the Chinese side of the border. The fighting has hurt the jade business and other cross-border commerce, Aung Kyaw Zaw said in an interview, with at least four bridges destroyed in the area.

The clashes appear to have been sparked by the capture of three government soldiers last week by Kachin rebels after the military demanded that rebels abandon a guard post near the site of a hydroelectric dam being constructed by a Chinese company. The Burmese military then attacked the rebels.

“In the beginning it seemed like the Burmese wanted to launch limited warfare,” said Min Zin, a doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley, who is currently along the China-Myanmar border researching the ethnic conflict. “But this may lead to a broader war.”

Northern Myanmar is one of the most unstable parts of Southeast Asia, with rebel armies controlling pieces of territory like medieval fiefdoms. More than a dozen ethnic groups across Myanmar have signed cease-fire agreements with the central government but those deals have frayed in recent years as the government has sought to consolidate its control and unify the country.

A recruiting drive in recent years by the Kachin rebels has increased their strength to about 7,000 men, according to Aung Kyaw Zaw. This would seem no match for Myanmar’s army which, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, is one of the largest forces in Southeast Asia.

But the Kachin know the terrain well and have a reputation as able jungle warriors going back to World War II, when they allied themselves with the United States and Britain and terrified Japanese soldiers by cutting off their ears as trophies.

“Our strategy is guerilla warfare,” said Brang Lai, who is an aide to Gun Maw, one of the Kachin’s senior leaders. “We don’t have sufficient supplies but our spirit is the most important thing.” The Kachin have laid land mines in the path of the government army, he said.

He did not rule out making targets of Chinese projects in the area, such as the gas pipeline, which is under construction. “Until now we don’t have the intention to disrupt the gas pipeline,” Brang Lai said. “We are waiting for the Chinese response.”

Chinese investment in northern Myanmar has increased manifold in recent years, including plantations, jade mines and infrastructure projects. The fighting complicates Chinese efforts to foster a peaceful balance between the central government and the rebels.

“It’s bad timing for the Chinese,” said Min Zin, the researcher. “The potential destabilizing affect might drive the Chinese to get involved more quickly then they want to.”

The fighting in the Kachin areas is the most serious outbreak of violence since clashes in August 2009 when Burmese government troops defeated the Kokang, an ethnic Chinese rebel group, sending thousands of refugees fleeing into China.

That's one way of stopping Gas supplies from Shwe Gas Fields to China!

[Stan_Savljevic]

FM and ForSec in Naypidaw.

[wig]

our former COAS Gen Malik, V P on Developing ties with Myanmar -Realism more important than ethics, the write up includes details of how the Myanmarese armed forces were engaged and subsequently contributed to squelching certain insurgent groups. worth saving!

Since Independence India has tended to neglect its east, within and outside the national boundaries. In the west, despite irrational hostility towards us, we have maintained a comprehensive diplomatic dialogue with Pakistan’s military dictators. In the east, we shied away from meaningful diplomatic dialogue with Myanmar ever since its Generals took charge of the nation nearly six decades ago. In fact, despite our historical relations, a 1600-km-long undisputed common boundary and several geo-strategic interests, India became a persistent critic of the military rule in Myanmar until the mid-1990s.

Due to ideologicpolitic policies followed during this period, Yangon drew close to Beijing for political and economic support and for military weapons, equipment and training. China developed road communications and trade links from Yunnan (China) to North Myanmar which caused heavy influx of Chinese immigrants (approximately 1.5 million) and their economic influence right up to the Irrawady river. Secessionist gangs from India’s Northeast were able to establish and operate from their safe sanctuaries in North Myanmar. Gunrunning and drug traffic from the Golden Triangle into Northeast had increased substantially.

The credit for changing the course of the ethics-based policy to realpolitic in Indo-Myanmar relations goes to the governments of Prime Ministers PV Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. They realised that without proper diplomatic relations and cooperation with Myanmar, it would be impossible to control insurgencies and bring about stability in our Northeastern states. Besides, shifting the balance of power and the growing influence of China in India’s immediate eastern neighborhood and Southeast Asia, our long-term political and economic interests required a “Look East” policy.

Myanmar was seen as a natural bridge to Southeast Asia. These imperatives made it necessary to engage with the military regime in Myanmar. It was not principle but realpolitik that guided New Delhi’s changed attitude towards Yangon.

In March 1993, Foreign Secretary JN Dixit visited Yangon and signed a bilateral agreement to control drug trafficking and border trade. A Memorandum of Understanding to maintain border tranquillity was signed in 1994. Military visits were started at a low key. The real shift and a new momentum in India-Myanmar relations, however, came after the Vajpayee government assumed power.

In 1999, several proposals on India-Myanmar cooperation were under consideration, but there was no progress due to the lack of political contacts. Prime Minister Vajpayee and National Security Adviser (NSA) Brajesh Mishra then decided to utilise military diplomacy to supplement India’s foreign policy objectives.

In November 1999, Ambassador Shyam Saran (later Foreign Secretary) proposed to the military government in Myanmar that l, then Chief of Army Staff, have a “quiet” meeting with General Maung Aye, Vice-Chairman, Government of Myanmar, Deputy C-in-C, Armed Forces, and C-in-C, Myanmar Army. This could then lead to my inviting Maung Aye and senior military officers in charge of relevant ministries for a meeting with Union ministers in India.

Initially, our Ministry of External Affairs suggested that this meeting should be held at Tamu-Moreh on the Myanmar-India border. I rejected such a border meeting at the level of the Chiefs. After discussions with the NSA, it was agreed that I would go with a small military delegation to Mandalay and after our meetings, bring the Myanmarese delegation to Shillong.

On January 5, 2000, after canceling all engagements for the next four days, I left for Imphal in an Air Force Avro aircraft along with a small tri-service delegation. Early next morning, after flying across the Chindwin river and thick forested Chin Hills, we landed in Mandalay, the second largest city in Myanmar on the eastern bank of the Irrawady. We were received on the red-carpeted tarmac by Maung Aye and almost the entire Myanmarese Cabinet (mostly Generals). Ambassador Shyam Saran and the Military Attache Colonel Jasbir Singh were at hand. From the airport, Maung Aye escorted me personally to an impressive guard of honour and then to the room allotted to me in Nanmyo Guest House.

Over the next 48 hours, besides a formal meeting, dinner, a visit to the nearby military institutes (in Pyin Oo Lwin) and local sightseeing, I had several one-on-one discussions with Maung Aye. We discussed the need to enlarge India-Myanmar cooperation in the military field to include greater border contacts, passing of real-time information and coordinated operations against the insurgents on both sides of the border. I also apprised him of the training programmes and non-lethal equipment that we could offer. The need to expedite planning and implementation of the civil projects already accepted in principle by our two countries and widening diplomatic exchanges were also discussed.

Maung Aye and his colleagues never spoke about China but quite apparently were keen on enlarging civil and military ties with India. I also managed a surprise visit to the local market to look for the Chinese influence and to buy a pair of ruby earrings for my wife.

On January 8, our respective delegations, in separate aircraft, flew to Shillong via Gauhati. The Air Force gave the guard of honour to the visiting Vice-Chairman of Myanmar. Maung Aye and his delegation met Murasoli Maran, Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, and Kumaramanglam, Union Minister for Power and civil officials from several ministries who had flown in from New Delhi. After a formal introductory meeting, Maung Aye and I withdrew to the bungalow where we were put up together while the ministers and officials from our countries started discussions on the development of road and trade links and hydro-power projects in Myanmar.

When Maung Aye left Shillong with his delegation next day, I gave him a map marked with locations of hostile Naga gangs in North Myanmar. A fortnight later, these locations were raided and destroyed by the Myanmar Army. When the hostile elements attempted to run across the boundary into India, they were ambushed by our troops and suffered further casualties.

In April 2000, I was invited by the Government of Myanmar, this time more formally, to visit historical places and civil and military institutions in different parts of the country. To keep the momentum going, an India-Myanmar Foreign Secretary-level meeting was held in August 2000. Political exchanges increased substantially. This, it was hoped, would lead to greater and more practical and meaningful cooperation in the economic and security fields.

It is a matter of regret that these efforts have started floundering lately due to political inhibitions, diplomatic neglect and attempts to align ourselves with US and European Union human rights and environmental policies. While India has been slow in establishing political and economic foothold, China has managed to gain access to Myanmar’s waterways, harbours and territorial waters and dominate its important jade and gems trade in North Myanmar. Myanmar is getting drawn into China’s orbit more and more.

It needs to be reiterated that strategy and diplomacy in international relations are based not on sentiments but the art of the possible and the advancement of national interests. Kautilya had stated, “When the interests of the country are involved, ethics are a burdensome irrelevance

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110621/edit.htm#4

[VinodTK]

India hedges its bets in Myanmar

The two sides are reported to have also discussed counter-insurgency cooperation. Several anti-India insurgent groups that are active in India's northeast have bases and training camps in Myanmar and New Delhi has been working on getting the military to support it in its counter-insurgency operations.

[Agnimitra]

Myanmar tilts towards civil war

However, Beijing maintained relations with the ethnic mutineers who subsequently formed the UWSA, National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA) and other groups. The groups were viewed as a way of maintaining leverage against the Myanmar regime and provided a buffer in case of unrest in the country.
[...]
However, some analysts see the Kachin conflict as part of a larger plan by Naypyidaw to seize control of areas where there is substantial Chinese investment and influence. Speculation is rife that China may have given its approval to these operations in order to safeguard its investment interests and an unknown number of Chinese working on projects in Kachin areas and elsewhere in Myanmar.

[joshvajohn]

India should do more to support democracy in Myanmar: Suu Kyi
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india ... yi/809892/

[SwamyG]

SAAG's conclusion on the recent visit

It looked more like a routine visit after the civilian government had taken over in Myanmar.

If there is anything significant in the visit it is that the Foreign Minister did not find it politically ‘convenient’ to see Aung San Suu Kyi. It may please the generals, but it is not clear what India hopes to gain by this “gesture”.

It is hoped at least after the visit, the Kaladan project will be speeded up in right earnest by the Indian side.

[joshvajohn]

US seeks coordination with China, India on Myanmar
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-se ... ar/810833/


What India needs is to work out a strategic plan with democratic group so that when they come to power they work closely with India's investment and interests and not fall into the trap of Chinese threats and influences. This will benefit India as and when democracy can be brought into Myanmar as reality before they obtain a nuclear bomb from China and thus emphasise growth and development and better future for Myanmar and her people from all tribes. This development certainly will preserve their culture and faith for which Budhdhist monks are already part of revolution.