Myanmar developments may force India to take a relook at its policies

Four northeastern states — Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Manipur — share a border with Myanmar.

But there are fears that insurgents who had taken shelter inside Myanmar are now back and are contributing to the trouble in Manipur.

Indian Defence Secretary Giridhar Aramane visited Myanmar recently and held meetings with top officials there on June 30 and July 1.

"The visit provided an opportunity to raise matters relating to India’s security with senior leadership in Myanmar," the Ministry of Defence said.

Both sides discussed the need for maintaining tranquillity in the border areas and preventing illegal activities.

However, many experts are questioning the efficacy of India’s policy with its over-reliance on the Myanmar army to serve its interests in the country.

India’s policy towards Myanmar

India’s policy towards Myanmar has been dictated by its economic, security, and strategic interests.

Before the coup, India, like many other regional countries, maintained a policy of engaging with both the army generals and the democratic forces and their leaders, like Suu Kyi.

In the November 2020 elections, Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party won an overwhelming majority over the army proxies and formed a government.

Myanmar plays a key role in India’s ‘Act East Policy’, which allows Delhi access to the huge Southeast Asian market.

Besides, India has invested billions of dollars in connectivity infrastructure and other projects in Myanmar.

The other reason for India’s engagement with the Myanmar army is to offer an alternative to the looming presence of China in the country.

The Myanmar army needs India as an option against China — the country’s main investor and backer. But Delhi also needs the army’s support to safeguard its economic and strategic interests in the country.

However, since the February 2021 coup, when the army dismissed the democratically elected government and its leaders, particularly Suu Kyi, India has been put in a spot.

Rising pressure from rights groups and opposition

In recent months, pressure has been mounting from rights groups and the Myanmar opposition for India to move away from the army and start supporting the democratic forces.

When India said it was "disturbed" by the army's airstrike on civilians in a village that killed 170 people in April and asked all parties to resolve their differences through dialogue, there was widespread disappointment among the democratic forces in Myanmar.

The opposition argues that since the army is not in control of most areas, particularly those bordering India and where it has made huge investments, Delhi’s interests will be better served and protected by the opposition and armed insurgent groups fighting the Myanmar army.

During Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the United States, the Myanmar opposition campaigned with the Joe Biden administration to convince India to drop its support for the army.

But the US refused to pressurise India, as it did not want to jeopardise Indian support in dealing with the more pressing challenge of China in the region.

Recently, an Indian government-sponsored think-tank organised a gathering in New Delhi of all the stakeholders in Myanmar to find a peaceful solution to the current crisis.

But the effort failed to create a mechanism for engagement between the contending parties.

Myanmar Army’s strategy

The army has been continuing its hardline stance, including air strikes, against the opposition bases.

Many of these strikes have been in the border area with India, and the spill-over effect is felt increasingly in the Indian states.

The army’s action is aimed at marginalising the opposition and pacifying the country before it can hold an election in Myanmar and win.

The Myanmar army, locally known as the Tatmadaw, was apprehensive that Suu Kyi’s party would use its overwhelming majority in parliament to change the Constitution and bar the army from participating in politics.

This led army chief General Min Aung Hlaing to dismiss the elected government and put the democratic leaders in jail.

According to some estimates the army controls as little as 17 percent while other says it is much more. However much of the army control is regularly contested by other armed groups.

Even if the army manages to hold the elections and get General Min Aung Hlaing elected, will it be accepted as a legitimate verdict or further expose the army’s weakness? That will remain an important question in the coming days.